the Power of Demurrage: the Wörgl Phenomenon

(left: Michael Unterguggenberger, the man who ended the Great Depression in Wörgl)

The velocity of money is a badly neglected aspect of monetary theory. It is far more important than people realize and both in past and in the present depression, sluggish circulation played a major and negative role. The most obvious way of increasing the velocity of money is Silvio Gesell’s demurrage, a negative interest rate, in effect a tax on holding money. This is not just theory. There is a famous case in which it was implemented. The Wörgl experiment showed truly extraordinary results and is legendary in Interest-Free Economics.
It’s relevant today too, with the Danish Central Bank this week setting a negative interest rate for the first time in history.

Wörgl is a small town in the Austrian Tyrol that would be completely inconspicuous, were it not for an amazing event that transpired almost 80 years ago.

At the height of the Great Depression some 4500 people lived in the village. It was suffering badly from the catastrophic policies of the Austrian Central Bank, which had brought down the money supply from 1067 million Schillings in 1928, to 997 million in 1932 and 872 million Schillings in 1933. Unemployment stood at 1500 and 200 families were completely destitute.

The town owed 1,3 million Schillings to the Innsbruck Savings Trust and had to pay 50,000 per year in interest over that debt. The council was owed 118,000 in taxes, but it was all but impossible to get at it, with the result that the town was lagging on its own obligations to the regional government.

Meanwhile, there were plenty of public works that needed to be done. Roads had to be repaved, Street lights were necessary, water distribution needed to be extended and trees had to planted along the streets.

Enter Michael Unterguggenburger, the burgomaster (mayor) of Wörgl. He had been studying economics for the better part of his life and lived through the difficult times of the 1907 depression, the Great War, the associated inflation and now this massive deflation. He believed in Socialism’s big idea of ‘ending exploitation of men by men’, but not in their methods, most certainly not their nationalization of the means of production.

In this work Gesell introduces his ideas about the circulation of money and how to improve it: through demurrage. A tax on holding money, a negative interest rate.

And Unterguggenberger, desperate at the situation in his town, decided to give Gesell’s ideas a shot. He created ‘Certified Compensation Bills’, in denominations of 1, 5 and 10 Schillings. These would devalue at a rate of 1% per month at the end of the month, and those holding the bill at the time devaluation needed to buy a stamp of 1% of nominal value to extend it.

(One of Unterguggenberger’s certificates. On the right the stamps representing the hoarding fee)

Quoting from Fritz Schwarz, who originally documented the Wörgl case:

“On the 31st of July 1932 the town administration purchased the first lot of Bills from the Welfare Subcommittee for a total face value of 1000 Schillings and used them to pay wages. The 1000 Schilling official money paid to the Welfare for the Bills were deposited at the local “Reiffeisenkasse” (where they were held until someone offered the bills to convert them back to Schilling, which could be done at any time at a cost of 2% of the nominal value of the bills, AM).

The first wages paid out, to the amount of 1000 Schillings, returned to the coffers of the community almost on the same day. Taxes were being paid! On the third day somebody came running and shouting, “Mr. Mayor! Our Bills are being counterfeited. We have only issued 1000 Schilling so far, but the amount of overdue taxes paid with them has already reached 5,100 Schillings! Somebody must have counterfeited the Bills!”

The Mayor smiled forgivingly. He knew that bigger men would make the same mistake. Even Professor Dr. Bundsmann, lecturer of macro-economics at the University of Innsbruck and honored with the Austrian title of “Honorary Civil Servant” would call the success of Wörgl with its fast circulating money a hoax, because he could not understand how 5100 Schilling in taxes could be paid from an issue of only 1000 Schillings. That was beyond the expectancy of the Mayor himself. But every Schilling coming as Bill was re-circulated right away to pay an invoice, and was back and out again in short order, because this money attracted a penalty when idle. At that time the National Bank of Austria kept in circulation a constant amount of about 914 million Schillings for a population of some 6 million, or 153 Schillings per person. At the issuing peak, the value of Wörgl Bills was 7443, less than 2 Schillings per person. But these 2 Schillings gave more income and profit to each person than the 153 Schillings of the National Bank. Why? Because they were designed to entice people into using them, which is what money is for: to pay, to do business, to exchange. A. Hornung, who was against this “free money” and the whole experiment, reported grudgingly: “The issue of relief money was back in the coffers of the municipality within days. From there it could be re-used for payments. The total average in circulation was: August 1932 3675 September 3375 October 3525 November 6350 December 5725 January 1933 5450 February 5650 March 5625 April 5750 May 5675 June 5875 July 5800 August 5825 September 5825 Average: 5,294

How ludicrous is the thought of people with no inkling of the importance of money’s velocity of circulation for the economy.

AM: the total amount of trade financed by the certificates amounted to the equivalent of 2,5 million Schillings. While only about 5,500 worth of certificates were circulating on average. Meaning that the small demurrage of 12% made the certificates circulate at least a hundred times faster than the Schilling.

An eye witness report by Claude Bourdet, master engineer from the Zürich Polytechnic.
“I visited Wörgl in August 1933, exactly one year after the launch of the experiment. One has to acknowledge that the result borders on the miraculous. The roads, notorious for their dreadful state, match now the Italian Autostrade. The Mayor’s office complex has been beautifully restored as a charming chalet with blossoming gladioli. A new concrete bridge carries the proud plaque: “Built with Free Money in the year 1933.” Everywhere one sees new streetlights, as well as one street named after Silvio Gesell. The workers at the many building sites are all zealous supporters of the Free Money system. I was in the stores: the Bills are being accepted everywhere alongside with the official money. Prices have not gone up. …… One cannot but agree with the Mayor that the new money performs its function far better than the old one. I leave it to the experts to establish if there is inflation despite the 100% cover. Incidentally price increases, the first sign of inflation, do not occur.”

Aftermath
As a result of the incredible success of Unterguggenberger’s experiment, hundreds of Austrian towns planned on implementing the scheme. As a result the Austrian National Bank panicked and forbade the experiment. Vienna crushed the resentment with the threat of military intervention. Within a short while Wörgl was suffering again.

Famous men noticed the experiment. John Maynard Keynes and Irving Fischer payed homage to Gesell. French Prime Minister Edouard Daladier visited the place to check the experiment for himself. And Ezra Pound visited Unterguggenberger twice, the last time just before the good Burgomaster died in 1936.

Conclusion
To this day the Wörgl case stands out as the classic example of the need for monetary reform. It vindicates Silvio Gesell’s powerful analysis of the monetary and his demurrage.

A notable aspect of demurrage is that it offers a clear incentive for interest free loans. Sitting on it would lose value, value maintained by lending it out.

The simple fact is that even today a demurrage instead of interest on the money supply would radically transform our economies overnight.

Here is in interesting interview with FOFOA on the differences between the store of value and means of exchange functions of money. He offers a number of interesting insights (Thanks Transparent Unicorn):Interview with FOFOA

Afterthought on Sluggish circulation
It seems that deflation is closely linked to sluggish circulation. Consider, for instance, this graph:

Quite a catastrophic decline in circulation and good proof that hoarding cash is detrimental. And also that a deflationary crash is closely related to hoarding. This is not an attack on those who save money. In the way the system works, it’s rational behavior. It just shows that the system is not working properly.

Although I don’t have figures about the velocity of money in the thirties, Michael Unterguggenburger most definitely assumed that hoarding was the problem, because he had this printed on his certificates:

“To all whom it may concern! Sluggishly circulating money has provoked an unprecedented trade depression and plunged millions into utter misery. Economically considered, the destruction of the world has started. – It is time, through determined and intelligent action, to endeavour to arrest the downward plunge of the trade machine and thereby to save mankind from fratricidal wars, chaos, and dissolution. Human beings live by exchanging their services. Sluggish circulation has largely stopped this exchange and thrown millions of willing workers out of employment. – We must therefore revive this exchange of services and by its means bring the unemployed back to the ranks of the producers. Such is the object of the labour certificate issued by the market town of Wörgl : it softens sufferings dread; it offers work and bread.”

Like this:

Related

Anthony, good post. but I don’t know why you confuse Silvio Gesell’s idea and Negative interest. They are totally different. With Free-Money Reform of Gesell, hoarding money is impossible because the face-value of money is depreciated regularly. It means money circulation. A good example is the stamp script of Wörgl. With the negative interest, on the contrary, hoarding money is still possible because the face-value of money is constant. Goods perish, rust and rot. but money does not. And we prefer money to goods as the medium of saving. The result is money hoarding. I hope that you’ll correct your fallacy and read written by Silvio Gesell. His theory is fundamental prescription of all of social evils. I’m afraid that your superficial understanding can distort his theory. the result is enormous loss to society. why? ECB chose negative interest as the solution of deflation. but it will fail finally because of money hoarding. Then people will think “Negative interest is Gesell’s idea. He was wrong.” and his real proposal, that is Free-Money Reform and Free-Land Reform will die out.

Thank you! Your post is good. but I have to mention that Silvio Gesell’s idea is Not negative interest. They are totally different. With Free-Money Reform of Gesell, hoarding money is impossible because the face-value of money is depreciated regularly. It means money circulation like the stamp script of Wörgl. With the negative interest, on the contrary, hoarding money is still possible because the face-value of money is constant. Goods perish, rust and rot. but money does not. And we prefer money to goods as the medium of saving. The result is money hoarding.

I guess you know this. but you made a mistake. It’s not a little mistake. If many people confuse them, it will make a serious obstacle to Free-Money Reform.

Demurrage works where there is near-desperate demand for extra cash, and where the public is especially receptive to monetary alternatives. Otherwise, the requirement that people add stamps, spend by Wednesday, or face loss of value becomes a disincentive to accept local cash. Community currency must be at least as easy to use as national money.

I’m founder of Ithaca HOURS local currency and relied instead on relentless promotion and troubleshooting to keep the money moving. Whether paper or electronic, whether with demurrage or without, the success of local currency relies on professional networking.

I agree, THE Worgl Phenomenon is the great example of velocity of money at work. But common man takes the money out of the circulation for retirement, health care and other stuffs after retirement. This demurrage will be a big cost burden on the old age group who are saving to meet their future expenses and not for speculation or greed or control of money power.

Not necessarily- depends on how wide the currency is used. if it is just a spending currency then it causes no great harm. If it were to replace the currency AND the demurrage is directed to fund retirement, healthcare and the like- ideally in an individual/local community form then this would be totally transformative to those systems.

Lending organizations could be set up where value could be static or slightly positive (better than negative) for savings. Really this would create an interesting set of new and I think refreshing economic circumstances.

Car example given by a converted Austrian School follower which I think explains it quite well.

Moreover, I think that you guys are making the same set of MISTAKEN assumptions, about Mathematically Perfected Economy, that I, too, made, BECAUSE OF THE NAME.
Here is what I thought: When I heard the name—Mathematically Perfected Economy— visions of a Hungarian Central Planner entered into my head. …But that’s just me.
What I think has happened here, is that you guys have made the same mistakes that I once made. Well. Ignorance, once cured, returns for no good reason.

So, here is what Mathematically Perfected Economy REALLY IS:

(1) Principals for loans, are created out of thin air, as debt. …Our current monetary regime does this anyway.
(2) But the loans are interest-free. …Why would you pay somebody big bucks to do something that you could do for yourself, for nothing?
(3) The ELIXUR: Loans are paid back, and the money is RETIRED from the circulation, in a time-based manner which is the mirror-image of the depreciation of the product. Why? So there can be no inflation or deflation. …And, yeah, I know that stuff happens.
(4) Otherwise, there is NO government intervention in markets! No central planning. No regulations or manipulations or market distortions—-the invisible hand rule the day.
Here is a simple example: A car dealer decides to lend you money for a car which free markets have decided is worth $20,000. And this car will last for 10 years. This car will depreciate in value in a linear, straight-line fashion—-that is, it will lose, on average, $2,000 in value per year.
(1) $20,000 are created out of thin air as debt.
(2) The car dealer recieves $20,000—-a trade of equal measures of production in exchange for equal measures of production. Why? Because the invisible hand says so. That’s why.
(3) $2,000 per year are retired from the circulation as the loan is paid back untill, in ten years, ALL $20,000 have been retired from the circulation.

The result: After year 1, there is $18,000 left in circulation, and the car is worth $18,000. After year 5, there is $10,000 in circulation, and the car is worth $10,000. And so on and so on.

Get it? Under Mathematically Perfected Economy, (1) There is always enough money created out of thin air to cause full employment—-there is always full employment. (2) But, at the same time, there is always, on average, an inflation rate of ZERO. (3) And there is no more business cycle.
Well, now you know. And you guys are making the same exact mistakes that I originally made.

What happens when after 5 years some idiot smashes into your 20k auto and its repair costs exceed the value of the car? How does the invisible hand of mathematics know how to adjust for the new demand for repair costs and the new value of the auto. How does it accomplish this for all the gazillions of permutations involving unforseen devaluation events? MPE sounds more like the magical demiurge of micro central planning. And i think Hayek would agree and be right.

What happens when after 5 years some idiot smashes into your 20k auto and its repair costs exceed the value of the car?

It´s called a total loss. Insurance covers the damage which should equal or be close to the remaning balance of the loan. Irrespectufull the owner will alway be responsible for the loan until repaid. You do not want to lose your creditworthiness.

yes, but how does mpe keep track of the transactions involving new depreciations of goods so as to retire money at the proper rate? many things do not involve insurance. And what of fraud and waste? does he money retire itself?

We all have our account at the Common Monetary Infrastructure where we receive our salary, make payments, save (no interest though), etc.. This is where the monthly payments are being done from everyone´s account who has an obligation to do so. It´s a software application. But most of your questions are basically down to how a people are going to implement MPE.

Like I said before we will become 12x as liquid and we will basically only need to take on a loan for housing and/or transport.

Every person in the nation/world will be forced to have their account at one place from where they receive their salary and to where they make their payments for all their possessions: Nothing central planning and Orwellian about that.

With BIBO and I presume also with MPE, no one will be forced into doing anything, but those that want to use liquidity that is recognised by others will be glad to have an account because it solves an important problem for them, otherwise people will be free to do what they want with what is theirs.

There is no need for central planning just as there is no need for central planning of the use of the meter or the kilo. The fact that people refer to the same basic specification and standard practices to keep accounts by no means implies that there is central planning.

However, with your government run central planning where money circulates in perpetuity independently of the amount of wealth in circulation and where people conceive of money as a supreme value, then the government is forced into “controlling”.

Finally, from a previous post you seem not to grasp how money is retired, whenever a positive entry cancels a negative entry money is destroyed. As for creation, whenever new wealth is traded new money is created to represent that transaction. This is far removed from any kind of central planning because the creation and destruction of money is achieved spontaneously as wealth is transacted. It is absolute freedom where neither the government or anyone regulate trade.

What government will do is manage public projects as just another account holder and enforce the laws and customs of the land.

They parade as being anti bank and even anti interest but they spend all their time arguing against any rational foundation that proves how trivial the money function can be while being absolutely stable and dependable. It used to be that the very simplicity of the truth was what was argued against, “A complex problem must have a complex solution” would be the non-sequitur rebuttal of the false sages of the current twisted money paradigm.

But with the application of science to the problem, “simple solutions” are seen as “complex” only to those that are averse to the austere language of science and math. Furthermore and as the crisis deepens, affecting a larger part of the middle class, more and more trained technical professionals are discovering that the solution is at hand, that it is not a political one but rather a trivial technical one.

So the new agent provocateurs are desperate to try to take over any list such as this one, by degrading the level of discussion and systematically opposing reason. I have noticed this on the increase ever since I have pointed out the failure in the pseudo knowledge field of “economics and finance”, to define the functional scope of a money system versus that of governing an entire economy. The former being trivial to resolve, while the latter being inconclusively complex.

Traditionally, all those who wished to discuss the money issue were required to frame their proposals within the undetermined and boundless scope of “managing the world economy”. To the idiot pseudo scientists of economics and finance, this was interpreted as being a sort of compliment as to them it inferred upon them a great wisdom by virtue that they alone are called upon to be so courageous as to take on this massive problem, without realising that the very fact that they have no notion of problem scope is evidence that they don’t have a clue of what they are doing.

All this was convenient to those interested in disinformation as a tool of manipulation, because in such a frame any proposal is inconclusive and can be debated forever. This is the real essence of “Economics” and “Political Science” etc…

But in the context of systems analysis where problems are broken down into domains of clear functional scope, many solutions become indisputable on a purely technical level. That is, while no one has the ability to scientifically “control” and therefore “resolve” the entire economy a problem statement with no determinable scope, it is evident that the money system without loss of functionality whatsoever can be made: neutral (inert), stable, accessible to all and any transaction and completely decentralised.

Models of such locally autonomous systems are everywhere in nature, beginning with our bodies where each constituent cell possesses all the potential of any other cell and has full access to the complete knowledge base (DNA) that any other cell does. This is made possible by virtue of very clear functional scope of cell functions that give way to context-based differentiation.

Coming back to the new agent provocateurs and exposing them for what they are, the ultimate test is to demand that these provide a mathematical model of what they say and that they present that model within the appropriate functional scope, if they cannot, then they simply are not qualified and are wasting everyone’s time.

It is possible that some are not agent provocateurs but rather are exponents of the many fields of pseudo knowledge that abound today, these like most economists have been duped by the system and they are naturally reticent about admitting that their “careers” have no objective value and in many cases no value whatsoever.

The dysfunctional state of occidental society is very severe and itself is the greatest obstacle we face in trying to turn the tables. People are expected to be civil yet reason and logic is systematically undermined so as to make civil discourse next to impossible to maintain, but we must persevere because the alternative is not viable no matter how much it appears to vent our frustrations on the short term.

Tammuz, I don’t know who you are and what your agenda is, mine is simple I use math and science to deal with a technical problem and present solutions in those terms and framed within a clearly defined scope. You on the other hand have no such skills (if you did, you would have presented your arguments in those very terms but you don’t ever go near doing that) yet without understanding or even trying to, you insist on denigrating such proposals by whimsically labelling them to suit your superficial and incomplete arguments.

This means that logically, there are only two possibilities:

a) You simply don’t know what you are talking about, but love wasting everyone’s time arguing what you don’t understand to see how far down to nowhere you can get others to follow you

b) You do understand but cannot and will not accept where logic inevitably leads

There is no other possibility, we could speculate as to why b) might be true in your case but that is another story. As for a) well, that is the mark of our “advanced” society and can be explained by majority rule, where the objective is not separating knowledge from falsehood but rather it is to count on the majority not being able to discern the difference.

Holland4MPE: Your car example is wrong, because those 20,000 dollars are NOT created out of thin air. That idea is based on a wide-spread misunderstanding of how money creation by credit granting really works.

Your are correct. Out of thin air is just a popular frase used by many these days and it describes where the $90 is coming from (money creation). Most if not all of the money creation is collateralized, so to say money is created out of thin air is just not true. It is created on the back of our production and labour. However, the bank doesn´t give up anything in lawfull consideration nor does it risk anything in this creation process. On the other hand they charge interest on an otherwise fair transaction between two traders by processing the obligation on their paper at nearly no cost making the system terminal at the same time.

In your theoretical world you are assuming that the 20k dollars to be a product of real wealth creation through labor.What if the 20k dollars was just created to meet demand for it in the manner you use your credit card to purchase something. There isn’t any collateral for this money, it is just created on the spot and exists as a debt to the bank plus interest. Nobody had to deposit a corresponding amount, even in a fractional sense, for this money to come into existence.

In the real world, the Fed makes money by making digital entries onto their accounts irrespective of mandated reserve ratio requirements. What do you think quanititative easing is beside hypothecation of hypothecation ex nihlo on a massive scale? The Fed, in your little 2 person world,would create a billion dollars and loan it out at interest. This what they have done and will continue to do as log as they have the authority to do so by the Federal reserve act of 1913.

[03/05/2012 18:25:30] darren rooke: mans ego is a resilient beast. though reality will allway shine through. i know this to be true as all systems that are flawed from the outset fail. and that includes you and me. i see true and clear. but at one time i did not.

[03/05/2012 18:27:38] darren rooke: lets be clear MPE blows me away. i love it. it sends a shiver down my spine as i realise its implications.

[03/05/2012 18:33:04] darren rooke: at one time i could not understand mpe at all i listened to mike in a couple of vidoes but just some how i could not grasp it. so i left it for about 8 months whille i studied other things. i knew mike was on to something. i thought to my self, there is no way a man can talk at such lenghts and not have something of value. so i returned to mpe about a month ago now and i got it straight away. why, give in i just did.may be my head was just clutterd. at the time i came across mike i was studying the freeman on the land and thats a deep rabbit hole.

[03/05/2012 18:37:00] darren rooke: the freeman on the land is short of one concept and that is one of how do we do commerce in a free way with out exploitation. they have come up with alsorts but nothing compared to MPE. as nothing compares to MPE

A National NON PROFIT Accounting Common monetary Infrastructure (CMI) that proves & demonstrates it commits no crimes against us will be established by UNITED PEOPLES MANDATE by the people for the people to handle all debt obligations / deposits (NO BANKS), credit / money will be created & issued at NO INTEREST by the people themselves via * unexploited promissory obligations * based on a simple 1.1.1 Second grade math ratio where (1) All DEBT OBLIGATION is equal or no more than all remaining money in (1) CIRCULATION & equal to no more than all remaining depreciating (1) PROPERTY VALUE.

Principal only is paid down out of circulation at the rate of depreciation or consumption of the related property then its rightfully retired/deleted along with the debt obligation after its fulfilled, The CMI will be publicly run by government although representatives have no ability to intervene or regulate the CMI outlined in the mandate.

Principal has to be rightfully retired to defeat circulatory inflation.
(ANY PRINCIPAL PAID DOWN OUT OF CIRCULATION ON A PROMISSORY OBLIGATION IS THE PROPERTY OF NO ONE)

Remember MPE is a sovereign economy where No one is borrowing or loaning money from anyone because we create money (principal only) so its only a obligation then to pay & rightfully retire (principal only) that you created on conception to pay for the property you purchased in the beginning, it has to be retired simply to defeat circulatory inflation OR to prevent too much money in circulation.

There’s no free lunch or unearned profits in MPE, we give up & receive an equal representation of wealth to each other which also consists of the earned profit or entitlement from our labor & production we give up & receive from each other without banks or government representatives intervening on our business & commerce stealing from us in the process.

Across earlier history, it was possible at least for truly free implementations of barter to impose no imperfection upon their subjects. Free, unimpeded barter allowed people to produce to natural capacities, and to obtain for our own production whatever we deemed to be equal, undiminished measures of the production of others. These core objectives comprise the standards of any monetary “economy” which truly serves humanity, because contrary to the intended faults of imposed monetary systems, it is possible and obviously desirable to trade by universal tokens of wealth, without involuntarily sacrificing ever more to irreversible multiplication of debt by interest, and without suffering systemic collapse as an inevitable consequence of irreversible multiplication of debt.

Virtually all modern “economies” have been imposed upon the subject societies; and we know this at least because in every case it would have been impossible for the subject people to have approved veritable, justified principles, because the means of taking from them is irreversible, unjustifiable multiplication of debtin proportion to the people’s means. That is, merely to maintain a vital circulation subject to interest, it is necessary to re-borrow whatever the people pay toward interest and principal obligations, which thus perpetually increases the sum of debt so much as periodic interest. Incontrovertibly then, any monetary system subject to interest imposes upon its subjects an ever escalating dispossession which inevitably culminates in collapse: because debt is multiplied in proportion to means, ultimately a sum of debt is engendered which the system can no longer afford to service.

So the faults of modern purported economies are intended to take from us exceedingly and without justification; and all of us can know this with certainty from the further obvious facts that we are persistently refused representation even while mathematically perfected economy™ is demonstrated to be the only prescription for perpetual full, unimpeded, undiminished, sustainable prosperity.

WHY MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY™ IS VITAL TO RESTORING REPRESENTATION Thus representative governments have been usurped by the central banking systems of the world; and representation can only be restored by establishing mathematically perfected economy™, because mathematically perfected economy™ alone removes the usurpers and means of usurpation from the subverted political equation.

HOW MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY™ SOLVES ALL ECONOMIC ISSUES
Interest is eradicated in mathematically perfected economy™. Thus there is no artificial multiplication of debt in proportion to the circulation, or inevitable collapse; and so, rather than dedicating the circulation ever moreso to servicing debt, the entire circulation is persistently available to the original purpose of sustaining intended commerce.

As all production can be financed by mathematically perfected economy™, it is not even necessary to borrow money at interest, because mathematically perfected economy™ makes interest free obligations available to sustain payment for all wealth. Contrary to debts subject to interest, the obligations of mathematically perfected economy™ simply require that we pay for the related asset as we consume of it.

Because mathematically perfected economy™ finances all wealth, and because the obligation is to pay at the rate of consumption, everyone pays for everything with whatever they deem to be an equal measure of their own production; there is no inflation or deflation; there is no multiplication of debt; there is always sufficient circulation to pay all debts; the system is perpetually sustainable; and, just as in perfected barter where the quantity and state of wealth represent the wealth, the circulation and rate of payment in mathematically perfected economy™ endow the currency with perpetually persistent value, because every unit of the circulation is always redeemable in the very state of the wealth it is intended to represent.

EXAMPLE
For example, a EURO 100,000 home with a 100-year lifespan would be paid for at the overall rate of EURO 1,000 per year or EURO 83.33 per month; and the earnings this alone would immediately free should we implement mathematically perfected economy™ immediately, reflect the degree to which we would prosper further, without any other improvement whatever.
But at the same time we would be financially enabled to develop and succeed in far more industry and employment, with far more tolerance for earnings and success. Even college students for instance could afford new homes during their education for far less than they might presently pay for far less substantial accommodations.

METHOD OF TRANSITIONING TO MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY™The general method of transitioning to mathematically perfected economy™ is re-financing all debt without interest, subject to a schedule of payment equivalent to the rate of consumption. It is possible therefore to immediately avoid economic collapse, or further economic injustice, by transitioning to mathematically perfected economy™.

HISTORY
I originally published mathematic proofs that any purported economy subject to interest inevitably terminates itself under insoluble debt, and that there is one and one only solution to 1) inflation and deflation, 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3) inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt by interest (altogether which comprise mathematically perfected economy™) in 1979.

ALTERNATIVES CANNOT SAVE US
Many people adopt the mistaken disposition that alternatives can serve us, or that we are served by pursuing typical, incremental patterns of change. Largely, these attitudes only pave the way for persistence of the imposed systems, because one and one only proposition solves the breadth of issues, and because we need to solve them immediately.

RECOMMENDED COURSE OF ACTION
The recommended course of action is 1) to proliferate our understanding of mathematically perfected economy™; and 2) to adopt a constitutional amendment immediately transitioning to mathematically perfected economy™. We can only secure economic justice by spreading this information ambitiously, and thereupon, by asserting our right to proper, true economy.

Our necessary achievement of perfected economy therefore depends on you: It depends on your bringing everyone you can to this material; it depends on your understanding and prolific discussion of this material; and finally it depends on your asserting your right to it.

I have been interacting with people of various monetary dispositions for many years now, and all debates always boil down to this same question “Do you see money as a product?”

I’m passing this answer on to this group, in part because i´m collecting answers for a potential FAQ application; in part so we all are exposed to these answers. A set of related questions exists, all of which must be answered to give a good answer:

Is Money a Poduct?

Most people can’t give you a good definition of money — a definition which holds; and a definition which serves them.

Yet if we ask the questions which develop a fully accountable answer, we readily arrive at a fact that the only definition of money which can inflict no offense whatever, is a currency which comprises immutable tokens of value.

In fact likewise, most people do intuit that money IS a relatively immutable token of value — not understanding how the exceptions are engendered, or how the exceptions offend them. In other words, they recognize that immutability is a vital object; they likewise recognize that immutability of a promissory note is even vital to its facts of contractual obligation; but they do not recognize that one and one only monetary prescription makes good on this indispensable object of immutable tokenization of value.

Both to tokenize value and to immutably tokenize value nonetheless are only TO REPRESENT not only however many different products, but necessarily, to likewise represent the volumes of such products, or we fail to keep the ostensible 1:1 relationship between circulatory volume and remaining value of all products, which is necessary to immutable value.

The only way to immutably tokenize value therefore is if the units of value of the circulation are immutably linked to the remaining value of ALL represented property (not just to one or several of MANY products); and thus likewise, the remaining volume of units of circulation must at all times equal the volume of remaining value of the ALL the products which the circulation is intended to represent, or we fail to keep these principles. In fact then, the only way to maintain these equal volumes is to pay the value of the represented property out of circulation as the value of the property is perceived to be consumed, or to depreciate. The only way you can do this of course, is if we pay monetary obligations comprised only of principal, at the rate of depreciation or consumption of all represented properties.

Volume of circulation must likewise equal remaining volume of all represented property. Franklin observed in his “Modest Inquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency,” that the colonists prospered substantially more when they supplemented their circulation of precious metal with paper currency (certain implementations of which were debatably subject to interest). He postulated that some prospective extent of such supplementation might be excessive; and that it might have negative consequences. But nonetheless he noted (evidently then because they never reached such a limit) that the additional circulation of paper currency sustained substantially greater prosperity.

Why?

They must therefore have suffered previously from an effectively deflated circulation. But simple questions thus resolve Franklin’s curiosity:

If the circulation is to represent (tokenize) value, then if the circulation were ever to exceed the volume of the remaining value of all property, then someone would have received circulation for nothing. Such an excessive, “inflated” circulation however would be impossible, if in fact all promissory notes (of principal only) are legitimately collateralized.

Likewise however, if the effective volume of circulation is ever less than the volume of represented property, then it is impossible to trade all property all at once; and someone will not have received and persisted in just reward for their production.

So, an “effective,” just circulation must at all times equal as close as possible the remaining value of ALL production (“products”).

A further malady exists in the present disposition of currencies subject to interest. That is, ever more of a circulation is perpetually dedicated to sustaining ever greater sums of artificial debt, leaving ever less of the same circulation to represent/tokenize the value of property. Thus interest makes abiding by our necessary principles of immutable tokenization impossible.

1. The only circulation which sustains all these necessary objects therefore is a volume of circulation which is at all times equal to the remaining value of all property.

2. The only way to maintain such a circulation is to pay principal out of circulation at the rate of consumption or depreciation of related property.

3. Thus as a circulation comprised of promissory notes only represents FINANCED property (subject to promissory obligations), the only way to sustain a circulation which necessarily represents the remaining value of all property is to further accommodate immediate conversion of equity into currency.

These in fact then are the principles of mathematically perfected econom; and this is a vital path of the logic of overall solution.

But our question asks if money is a product? Essentially, this is to ask if it MUST be a product in order to serve these vital purposes of a just currency, which of course must eradicate all potential for systemic offense.

We can see however, even on an abstract level, that the concept of tokenization can only go awry if the need for tokenization must account for all products, and the concept of tokenization requires A product or a few productS to do so. Yet even according to the concept of tokenization itself, the token is distinct from the product itself — unless to be an immutable token of value, “money” must actually exist in the physical form or instances of some such “product.” In other words, if just/”honest” money IS a product; how then and why would argue this restrictive concept of A product or products? How can either case serve the objects of volume equaling the volume of ALL products, if money “must” be A product or products; and if the volume of THE product or products must yet equate to the volume of ALL products?

In fact, given the aforesaid observations, we readily recognize that nothing but ALL products CAN so represent all products; and the only reason folks like the Austrian “economists” are trying to insist on A product (or products) for their obfuscated claim to tokenization, is they refuse to acknowledge the very principles they pretend their ONE or few products somehow uphold — and yet are proven not to uphold.

As Franklin likewise observes, never did their precious metal monetary standards result in actual consistent values of money; and the reasons are evident in these principles: There is no perpetual 1:1:1 relationship between remaining circulation: remaining value of represented property: and obligation, because the Austrians refuse to recognize that the only mathematic course to this perpetual relationship is to pay off promissory notes comprising obligations of principal only, at the rate of consumption or depreciation of the related property — with the payments thus retiring the circulation as the value of the property itself is consumed. In fact, only promissory notes of principal, paid at this obligatory schedule of payment CAN accomplish these purposes; and do so even without regulation.

Thus we readily understand the problems of gold, which itself in fact perpetually violates our necessarily perpetual 1:1:1 relationship; and which further violates these principles when it coexists with interest, which perpetually disposes ever more of the circulation to servicing a perpetually multiplying sum of artificial debt — leaving ever less of the same circulation to sustain commerce.

Thus the answer to the original question is that money CANNOT BE A product, if it is to be an immutable token of value, because A product, in which the resultant circulation would ostensibly be redeemable, ITSELF cannot represent All products! Thus it cannot provide a perpetual 1:1 relationship between volume of circulation and redeemability which purportedly eliminates subversion of value.

Effectively, the Austrians (and others) claim virtues of gold which do not exist, while the principles they exalt instead would endorse only mathematically perfected econom, because the only currency which CAN accomplish this purpose of making the circulation effectively not A product, but in fact at all times ACTUALLY REDEEMABLE in ALL products, is mathematically perfected economy — which alone therefore, immutably tokenizes all products represented by the circulation, and in such a way that the circulation is always redeemable in the very scope and volume of products it was from the beginning, intended to represent.

The only thing i would add is that our approach which is not at all founded MPE but derived from an independent study of “Common Lending Practices” in the context of control theory and stability analysis.

Our view is much simpler, we simply note the following:

1) Money is a record or reference of value that needs to be stable (which does not mean fixed), in order for it to be useful as a measure.

2) The only necessary function money performs is to measure value and its divisions in order to overcome the limitations of barter.

3) All value can only be 100% in the goods and services transacted with money i.e. it is a lunatic’s view that a piece of paper, a book entry or any other physical tokens can “carry” the value inherent in the objects they represent in transactions.

4) The argument that money has value because it assigns ownership to wealth is also idiotic, it is the function of assigning that has functional value but not the token that is simply a component of the function.

5) It is absurd that money should be subject to trade and commerce, rent and lending or that it should be scarce.

6) Money does not flow wealth does, money simply records the flow.

All of the above, serve to realise that technically, it is trivial to resolve the financial woes although psychologically it is not because people brainwashed. This brain washing is done away with when one realises the absurdity of money being both a unit of measure and a scarce commodity of variable value measured as a function of itself as explained here:

No, fungible means that something is exchangeable for another. A unit of measure measures to facilitate the fungibility of what is being measured but itself is not fungible.

The idea that money is a fungible asset is what brings us back to it being a thing of intrinsic variable value depending on market forces etc.. This leads to justifying interest and deteriorates its function of measure.

We need to view money as a unit of measure or simply make available a new unit whose function is to measure value and nothing else so that we all have a liquidity function available to us that is free of the current insanity.

So if money, a unit of measure as you call it, is not in and of itself fungible, then how can it be used as a universal means of exchange? Aren’t we back to barter units of exchanges. It seems to me that you talking about an aspect or function of money in abstraction from its real and complete role in market exchanges.

“So if money, a unit of measure as you call it, is not in and of itself fungible, then how can it be used as a universal means of exchange?”

How can a piece of paper, an account balance or paper and coins be fungible with say a horse?

The confusion is that by using money (a unit of measure) to measure value that is common to all goods and services it renders everything fungible, from there people make the fatal step of saying that money is fungible.

But in reality money is a component of a function that makes everything fungible, but there is no need or benefit to treating money as fungible resource. It is just abstract reference.

A piece of paper is fungible because it an acceptable means of exchange for a horse, a cat or for anything on the marketplace in whatever increments represent mutually agreed values. A horse isn’t fungible because its value is fixed, indivisible, and not acceptable to people that do not need or want horses for their goods or services.

I’m not trying to be contentious here. I’m just trying to understand the concept of money you and holland are bringing to the discussion.

You miss the point, it is the unit of measure inherent in money that makes non fungible things fungible. But to achieve that, you don’t need money to be a resource or in anyway act as a commodity but rather as a simple unit of measure.

Across earlier history, it was possible at least for truly free implementations of barter to impose no imperfection upon their subjects. Free, unimpeded barter allowed people to produce to natural capacities, and to obtain for our own production whatever we deemed to be equal, undiminished measures of the production of others. These core objectives comprise the standards of any monetary “economy” which truly serves humanity, because contrary to the intended faults of imposed monetary systems, it is possible and obviously desirable to trade by universal tokens of wealth, without involuntarily sacrificing ever more to irreversible multiplication of debt by interest, and without suffering systemic collapse as an inevitable consequence of irreversible multiplication of debt.

Virtually all modern “economies” have been imposed upon the subject societies; and we know this at least because in every case it would have been impossible for the subject people to have approved veritable, justified principles, because the means of taking from them is irreversible, unjustifiable multiplication of debtin proportion to the people’s means. That is, merely to maintain a vital circulation subject to interest, it is necessary to re-borrow whatever the people pay toward interest and principal obligations, which thus perpetually increases the sum of debt so much as periodic interest. Incontrovertibly then, any monetary system subject to interest imposes upon its subjects an ever escalating dispossession which inevitably culminates in collapse: because debt is multiplied in proportion to means, ultimately a sum of debt is engendered which the system can no longer afford to service.
So the faults of modern purported economies are intended to take from us exceedingly and without justification; and all of us can know this with certainty from the further obvious facts that we are persistently refused representation even while mathematically perfected economy™ is demonstrated to be the only prescription for perpetual full, unimpeded, undiminished, sustainable prosperity.

“If there was a modicum of truth to your hysterical claims that demurrage is theft and would be used to exploit and enslave men with debt, the banker cabals would have used it long before…”

So because the banker cabals didn’t use the dummerage method of plunder that proves it wasn’t plunder. Way to spin… more word games from the political economy spinsters… Keep em comin because that’s all you Illuminists agents with your staged opposing theories have when you don’t have “a modicum of truth”. However, it does have educational value with regards to the intricacies of the Black Arts.

Grief. First you try to prove that the dumerrage isn’t theft because the bankers didn’t use that method of plunder, now you try to prove that it isn’t theft because the economy resuscitated as if economic recovery proves the absence of plunder. Any national currency, debt-based or holding fee-based, issued into the real economy during intentional contraction resuscitates economies. Debt-based plunder and holding fee-based plunder work exceptionally well at plundering during economic recovery.

The economic prosperity demurrage generates is real and merely appearance or ponzi scheme generated bubble. More real wealth and jobs were created. If this can be maintained indefinitely, and it certainly looks as though it could be, then your notions of plunder has no actual merit. For there to be plunder, there must be a victim. I don’t see any beyond your doctrinaire, and by now i would have to say contentious, speculation. Show me how the Austrians were headed for exploitation in the long run based on the data and maybe i’ll consider your view.

I cannot agree with you, demurrage cannot generate prosperity. Prosperity is the result of individual autonomy and freedom to satisfy needs in an economy, it is the production of goods and services in an economy that produces prosperity and NEVER can it be the money system.

You have fallen into a fallacy by allowing that theories of money create the fantasy that money is power, that it is therefore a scarce commodity of indisputable value. Numbers and pieces of useless metal and paper with numbers inscribed on them, DO NOT AND NEVER WILL GENERATE PROSPERITY, in fact it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO DO SO. It is this that is at the core of the false paradigm of money.

Demurrage is an interference that to be useful, depends on there being an incorrect definition of money as a thing that flows through the economy. Money does not flow, the economy is like a highway and the toll booths are like accounts, each keeping track of how many cars enter and leave the highway at their position, It is not the numbers that flow through the highway but rather it is the cars.

This whole idea of having to do things to records of value (money) in order for real life events to occur is bullshit. The only advantage of demurrage to interest is that everything tends to zero all the time, but it is a theft that serves no one directly other than acting like a cattle prod, because people will be forced into spending for the sake of it to not get zero value back.

Demurrage is not necessary and if we get to zero interest there is no need to continue to negative interest.

Please tell me where we are wrong and if no one can, why are we wasting time with such theories that confuse a band-aid solution within a false paradigm with requirements for a correct paradigm. Do you see the difference?

Because a faulty furnace fills the house with soot I need to control the air flow and use filters. Therefore a good system requires control of air flow and filters.

This is a fallacy, rigth? But this is the way you are reasoning on this issue.

Because there is a problem with money flow in a society that thinks that money retains value we control the “flow” of money by applying demurrage. Therefore since it is good to solve the flow problem then demurrage must be good as a standard feature of any money systems.

Wrong!!!! The problem is ONLY solved when people let go of the idea that money has value other than a record of value and that it flows.

Finally, the argument that demurrage forces wealth to flow is correct, but not desirable as the only reason to move stuff around is because of need not a monetary
cattle prod.

Where did I say the prosperity generated from the dumurrage wasn’t real? You just keep repeating yourself using different word arrangements, “word games”. But I will repeat myself using exactly the same words because truth doesn’t require to be continuously re-cloaked with different word rearrangement:

What do you see in the above comment that suggests “merely appearance” of prosperity?

“For there to be plunder, there must be a victim.”

More deceptive word games: If you get plundered during economic prosperity resulting from the robber barons increasing their quantity debt-based or user fee-based currency you’re not a “victim” of plunder?

Please… keep spinning… I find your commentary and all the staged opposing commentary quite amusing and a typical display of Black Art as shown by the following opposing comment:

“…the fantasy that money is power, … NEVER WILL GENERATE PROSPERITY …”

If money has no power and never generates prosperity then why is it that when central banks reduce its supply (as in the example of the Austrian Central Bank) prosperity is negated? If it doesn’t have the power to generate prosperity then it certainly wouldn’t have the power to reduce it.

And look at the utter volume of spinning words of emptiness required to make white appear black and black appear white, plunder to be victimless and bank accounts full of money to have no more power than empty ones: the language of the parasitical class.

“If money has no power and never generates prosperity then why is it that when central banks reduce its supply (as in the example of the Austrian Central Bank) prosperity is negated?”

In the present system money is power because it is treated as a scarce resource coupled to the vital function of measuring and recording value, rather than just being a record of value. The distinction is subtle but ever so important.

By the way there is no staged opposition, my comments are mine alone. I resent that remark.

“Sorry but you didn’t understand what i was saying, the point is that in reality money only is a record of value, it is not anything else.”

I understood what you said Marc and my apologies for being indiscriminate but I have no interest in the array of opposing, long and drawn out, complex theories clouding the simple nature of money.

A “record of value” of and by itself doesn’t have purchasing power thus money is more than just a “record of value”. Many things and methods can be used to record value (a pen and paper) but that doesn’t give those things or methods purchasing power. So the evidence that money is endowed with value (by fiat and agreement) is the fact that you can buy stuff (wealth) with it.

The last thing a sovereign nation’s commoners need is a body of money “experts” telling them that their sovereign money they toiled for is just worthless “records of value” or that their money is just “certified compensation bills” that are the property of the “commonwealth” thus all the peoples’ wealth is licensed by the “state.” They don’t need “experts” using complex word games deliberately confusing the simple nature of their money.

I believe the power in money is used to concoct a lot of these complex word games (theories) to convince people that their money has no power. In my opinion these theories demonstrate what the power of money can do: monay has the power to make people say it’s powerless. Is it no wonder that the time tested and proven method (not theory) that the banking cartel fear the most, the responsible central issuance by a sovereign government of lien-free legal tender, seems to be mysteriously absent from all these different schools of monetary theory?

“the banking cartel fear the most, the responsible central issuance by a sovereign government of lien-free legal tender, seems to be mysteriously absent from all these different schools of monetary theory?”.

You picked this up somewhere, and now you’re just as enthralled by it as you were previously with the current system, before you partly woke up.

Marc has been in the monetary field for longer than he cares to remember. Do you really believe he does not intimately understand debt free money printed by the sovereign?

Try to listen tammuz. Your still a green horn. There is more to the issue than you think.

Exactly! You have illustrated for everyone what the problem is. You think money has purchasing power, but that only shows how subtle the brainwashing is under the current money system and the importance of math to break that spell.

What you have missed is that the whole notion of purchasing is an extension of the definition of money, the definition of money is arbitrary and that transacting wealth beyond mere barter, DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE RECORD OF WEALTH GIVE ANYONE PURCHASING POWER.

Or is it that you are in favour of using money as a means of limiting peoples purchasing? Which would mean that you are in favour of the idea of using money as a means of control of people and society. Because if as you say money must provide “purchasing power” then you must believe that peoples needs desires and wants are not enough “purchasing” power. Is that what you are saying?

What so many forget when they talk about money is it is 100% arbitrary and the current definition of money is absurd, but by using that definition to try to talk about it even in sincere attempts to reform it, we fall in the trap of trying to build logical and valid arguments on the basis of an initially insane proposition.

Everything that tammuz has said about money being purchasing power etc. is an extension of the need forced on the users of the current false paradigm to reconcile the absurd notion of money being both a scarce commodity and a unit of measure. No one ever NEEDED to invent that notion, there is no definable functional benefit in doing so (that anyone would admit to being good). What there is however, is a logical confusion between the functions: transaction, measuring and recording value. Each of these are functions that can be performed independently of each other and there is no need to amalgamate them into one function or object and doing so just proves that the designer is not very good and is either a crook mathematician or an erred non mathematician.

So to conclude:

1) We all know that we can transact without money, so we have “purchasing” power without money, it is called barter.

2) It is trivial to create a means by which to measure value in a stable fashion, that is proven and provided at bibocurrency.org, measuring value is orthogonal to purchasing power i.e. you don’t need purchasing power to measure value. And even more trivial it is to record such values.

3) “Purchasing power” can be determined by any number of other rational criteria such as whether or not someone is qualified to purchase a certain object that may present a risk to third parties.

Money being “purchasing power” is just a circular conclusion of a insane proposition whose only function is confuse everyone about trivial functions. Humanity was hoodwinked into this scam either by error or design but the whole thing is bullshit.

What we need, is to realise that all theories that are based on this insane notion are useless. We need to realise how simple it is to provide reliable liquidity through the stable measure of value and its divisions in a way that is always accessible to all for any transaction and that it is insane to endow money with any power at all. We must cease to confuse social governance with the management of records of value.

Building control of the economy into a money system is an idiot proposition or a devil’s prank.

“In the present system money is power because it is treated as a scarce resource coupled to the vital function of measuring and recording value, rather than just being a record of value.”

Money has power in all systems that use it, past and present, because the money derives its power from the consensus of its users, namely, that it represents all wealth generated by those same users. The problem is not the practical idea of an agreed upon medium of exchange. The problem is that a small amount of the users of that medium who themselves don’t generate any wealth (parasites) conspire and promote all these theories to control the manner of its distribution in order to siphon off the generated wealth it represents for themselves.

“By the way there is no staged opposition, my comments are mine alone. I resent that remark.”

In my opinion much of the opposition, wittingly or unwittingly, is staged. The comments may be their own sincere views but they are formulated from controlled sources as evidenced by the rigidity and inflexibility of these different schools of thought. Which is why these are the last sorts the commoners need looking after the management of their money. Honest management of money is flexible, dynamic, changes and adapts as it learns and refines its management by continuously tweaking it closer towards perfection to enable that particular citizenry to generate the maximum amount of wealth and prosperity achievable. Rigid monetary theories that are founded upon debt, holding fees, taxes, complex theories understood only by the priesthood or restricted by a commodity inaccessible by the majority only serve to enrich the few and impoverish the many.

Sorry but you didn’t understand what i was saying, the point is that in reality money only is a record of value, it is not anything else.

The only function it provides is that of measuring wealth and its divisions for the purpose of trading a piece of value of an indivisible piece of wealth for an icecream cone.

The fact that people agree to a common unit doesn’t endow money with any other property but to record value. The value can only reside in the wealth (goods and services) nowhere else.

As for managing money, there is no need to manage money when it is just a record of value, there is no need to control the volume of money in circulation providing the following two requirements are met:

1) All units are generated by transactions
2) All transactions are Passive BIBO stable

That is the all of it. Essentially, money that follows these two requirements acts as a ruler to measure value with and in a sane world everyone has their own ruler, no need to borrow meters and repay them with bigger meters, which describes exactly the stupidity of the current money paradigm.

What matters are the quality of measurements made with a stable ruler not whether or not one has access to one. Of course, if you don’t have one (or its equivalent) you will have a hard time measuring in sync with those that do.

There is nothing more to all this. No need for demurrage no need for interest, no need for experts and money managers. Stable money trivialises the function of money and lets us all get along with really living.

“Marc has been in the monetary field for longer than he cares to remember. Do you really believe he does not intimately understand debt free money printed by the sovereign?

Try to listen tammuz. Your still a green horn.”

I know that Marc and just about everyone else here knows about sovereign lien-free money. All have been in the monetary field longer than I have because I’m not in the monetary field. I consider it to be one of the many disciplines of the Black Arts. Like all disciplines in the Black Arts it wasn’t constructed nor is it executed to bring understanding and clarity but confusion leading to ignorance. This is evidenced by the fact that all the long-time monetarists, as well as the non-greenhorns present here, can’t even come to a consensus on what money is. Thus perfectly sustaining and promoting the illusion of confusion and ignorance, which is precisely what this Black Art discipline was designed to do.

I recommend to those that are not in the monetary field to not even listen lest they have there understanding about money warped into complete ignorance.

There is no black art here, there is a lot of misunderstanding about what money is everywhere because we have all been brought up with a false paradigm around money. At bibocurrency.org we propose a rational and logical definition of money that I would love you to prove is invalid, just because I don’t like being mistaken and not know it. But you will have to do it with math and logic no opinions and conjecture, we are dealing with a man made device not a natural mystery.

What I find unfair on your part, is to try to smear efforts here on the basis of there not being agreement on what money is as if elsewhere there is. Come on 99% of humanity is confused about money!!!

And there is a lot of agreement here about basic concepts such as the effect of interest and the need for money to be neutral I like to say inert. The fact that some of us have taken it further, to the point of exact mathematical analysis only helps to engender greater clarity and therefore consensus at least in the long run.

99% of humanity doesn’t need you or anybody else to tell them what their money is just like they don’t need anybody here to tell me what their shoes are. The only difference in money and shoes is that nobody gives a crap about people’s shoes but they sure as coming hellfire give a crap about their money because they want to control it in order plunder their property.

99% of humanity is not confused about money and they don’t need elitists know-it-alls concocting up schemes to rip them off. All these word games have one thing in common: the control and plunder of people’s wealth by controlling their money. There never has been a consensus among you know-it-alls and there never will be a consensus because like the Black Art of the political party system, there’s not supposed to be a consensus only a confused, enslaved and plundered public.

Tammuz, you are off the mark. 99% of humanity have been brainwashed about money, I am not and i don’t think many others on this list are. But I am not going to waste anymore time discussing it with you until you are more composed.

“Tammuz, you are off the mark. 99% of humanity have been brainwashed about money, I am not and i don’t think many others on this list are. But I am not going to waste anymore time discussing it with you until you are more composed.”

Not so Marc. It’s the other way around: Well over 99% of humanity doesn’t understand you or many “others on this list”… who are you’re synthesized opposing counterparts. And that’s precisely the way it’s intended to be for reasons already mentioned. And just because I don’t cooperate with any of the brainwashing programs listed here doesn’t mean I’m not composed.

Tammuz, 99% don’t understand the conventional definition of money was my point. What we know is that definition is garbage. No one knows what % understand mutual credit but by the number who support it compared with when I started out 30 + years ago, it seems that the majority are capable of grasping the idea.

But rather than waste time with such speculations, tell me where at http://www.bibocurrency.org we are wrong and “incomprehensible.” It might be the case that it is you that doesn’t understand.

But before we go there lets get some basics straight:

Tammuz: “Debt money is the result of interest. Money becomes debt when it’s issued through the sale of interest bearing bonds and the creation of interest bearing loans.”

That statement is utter nonsense, money becomes debt not as a result of interest but as a result of Principal loans. Interest makes debt grow as a function of time either in a linear, quadratic or exponential fashion, all of which are unstable according to control systems theory. The problem is not that money is debt it is that debt grows as a function of itself, and that is what destabilises the economy. The whole point of money is to represent debt even when it is issued debt free from the moment someone is paid in that “debt free” money, that money becomes a receipt for wealth i.e. a debt. If there is no guaranty of redeeming value with money to cancel the debt to the bearer then no one is going to want the money.

The world is facing debt growth that has completely outstripped availability of principal to pay it at any rate, to the point that it is simply impossible to pay ever under the current false money paradigm, so either it is written off or whole countries are foreclosed on.

You confuse basic concepts and yet you have the nerve to smear others who know much more than you do about this along with a host of other areas you would do well in brushing up on, like basic math. What astounds me is how we live in a society where people believe that they can comment and opine about math based systems, without having to understand the most basic math concepts relevant to the subject! What do you know about the math of money?

As for your loss of composure, smearing others as you have is not only not productive it is the mark of those who insist on participating when they don’t know what they are talking about.

“That statement is utter nonsense, money becomes debt not as a result of interest but as a result of Principal loans.”

Are you saying that if governments didn’t borrow their money through the sale of interest bearing bonds and instead printed it and spent it into the economy with out borrowing it that they would still incur debt?

“…money becomes debt not as a result of interest but as a result of Principal loans…”

……

“.. Interest makes debt grow as a function of time either in a linear, quadratic or exponential fashion, all of which are unstable according to control systems theory…..”

……..

“..The whole point of money is to represent debt even when it is issued debt free, from the moment someone is paid in that “debt free” money, that money becomes a receipt for wealth i.e. a debt. If there is no guaranty of redeeming value with money to cancel the debt to the bearer then no one is going to want the money…”

Isn’t it obvious that debt is principle loan. Noboby thinks that is a problem. The problem that everyone associates with perpetual criminal debt has to do with the interest attached to it. That is all tammuz, or myself for that matter, is referring. Your technical parsing is just making a mountain of confusion over a molehill of an issue.

“..The whole point of money is to represent debt even when it is issued debt free, from the moment someone is paid in that “debt free” money, that money becomes a receipt for wealth i.e. a debt. If there is no guaranty of redeeming value with money to cancel the debt to the bearer then no one is going to want the money…”

Marc this is all semantics. Because there’s no absolute guarantee that Canadian government issued non-borrowed legal tender (debt-free) will be accepted, even though it has always been accepted, therefore it’s equivalent to debt is just word speak.

If governments issued the money themselves and spent it into the economy they would incur no debt. What is crippling nations is the interest on money that doesn’t need to be borrowed. If governments stopped borrowing and issued the money themselves that would solve the problem.

“If governments stopped borrowing and issued the money themselves that would solve the problem.”

No, it would not solve the problem, because the solution lies is not in who issues the money the issue is what money is designed to do. It is not as simple as saying “debt free by the government”, because the problem is that people confuse money with wealth and once they do that they hoard money and once they do that they lend at interest and voila, the whole happy party is over and bankers as they did in the past will say: “governments can’t do this job” and we come back to central banks gumming up the works until they fail and the whole stupid cycle repeats itself.

The problem is that people don’t realise that the only useful and benign function of money is to measure wealth and its divisions and record those measures in accounts. Wealth is not money bank balances are not wealth, they may refer to wealth they may support claims to wealth BUT THEY ARE NOT WEALTH.

Once humanity realises this, the problem will be solved and the simple math will lead to stable currency specification because the math says so.

On another point, knock off all this “it is all semantics” bullshit. If you think that definitions of math and science are just “semantics” then don’t ever step on a plane, train or drive an automobile, use an elevator, cross a bridge ….etc. My basis is 100% control theory it is not “just semantics”, what is clear is that you don’t understand it and because you don’t understand you are willing to jeopardise the whole discussion belittling it. You do so gambling you might be right and you have to gamble because you don’t understand the science, if you did understand the science then you would have disproven it (assuming that were possible) but you can’t so you stay clear of it and instead make sweeping statements that are inconclusive but serve to smear and that prove nothing.

People who reason like you do, are a big part of the problem, they are not truth seekers, they are opinion junkies that argue anything any time. And you can tell who they are when they deny a mathematical thesis without answering the math and/or are unable to explain logically why the math doesn’t apply. But they believe, mistakenly, that because they have a right to an opinion, that their opinion is therefore equally valid, even in math based discussions!

There is another category of people many of which don’t have a good math foundation, but they are determined to arrive at the truth. These will develop logic skills and they will study the architecture of fallacies, they will try to learn the math or understand it. They know that opinion is for choosing options where the data is not available or for questions of taste e.g. one’s favorites ice cream flavour, they also understand that if the system is 100% man made e.g. a logical construct like money, that it can hold no mysteries. They are intelligent and honest enough to realise that if someone proposes a logical solution to a problem, that it is either right or can be PROVEN to be wrong OR can be PROVEN to be imcomplete, but none of these would tolerate what you do, which is to wing it by smearing other peoples work that you clearly don’t know enough about to disprove.

Principle + Interest > Principle You don’t have to be a mathematician to understand this equation, yet it simply illustrates why it does matter who creates and issue the money supply. If private banks issue the money, debt to the banks will always exceed the amount of money in cirucation to pay this debt in kind, causing the seizure of real assets/wealth out of the economy. This eventually leads to financial collapse in private sector and complete control by the private banks via widespread defaults.

If govt issues money without interest then there is always enough money to conduct transactions for debts. Congress could adjust to volume according to demand to prevent deflation or hyperinflation. Despite corruption and error there is much greater accountability and transparency in a national bank than there ever could be in private foreign banks. And like tammuz stated, any excess in tax revenues gets respent into the economy instead of being put in some vault in the city of london.

debt free fiat would not be wealth or a commodity, just a medium of exchange. It couldn’t be traded on the market as gold or silver. It would be immune to manipulation by outside hedge funds and banks.

This is essentially the position that I, and i think , tammuz believes in. I am willing to consider the possible viability of demurrage, however.

You are wrong for confusing the nature of the function with who performs the function. If the function is correct it matters not who performs it, period.

That P < P + I is not the greatest problem it is that P+I grows as a function of time boundlessly. And again the greatest issue is that people believe that money is wealth which is the basis by which the majority buy into the scam.

“Principle + Interest > Principle You don’t have to be a mathematician to understand this equation, yet it simply illustrates why it does matter who creates and issue the money supply.”

No it does not “illustrate” why it matters who issues the money, it illustrates that debt is greater than the money supply. Charging interest can be done and has been done by both the private and public sectors. So who issues the money has nothing to do with whether or not interest is charged or not.

If you start to issue money debt free then how are you going to control money in circulation as per represented wealth i.e. inflation, deflation? Money has to be issued as a debt to be able to retire it again at the rate of depreciation or consumption of the related property. It´s an essential part of the equation.

More nonsense. Govt, through a national bank, can print all the money it needs to pay all of its debts entirely.

The circulation is simple matter to control by adjusting the volume. Congress, or the treasury, could add or contract the supply as needed. Money does not have to be issued as a debt; it is simply added when demand for it arises through wealth creation. For example, govt issues money for work done on a infrastructure project.

I personally like Steve Keen’s and Michael Hudson’s idea of a debt jubilee. All odious debts, e.g., derivatives, unpayble interest claims on principle, are to be cancelled. I’m even for cancelling unpayable priniciple debts such as student loans.

It´s not nonsens or otherwise you would be able to proof it. A debt jubilee is not solution. I have challenged Keen many times and he can´t even articulate the problems, let alone solution. And there is only one solution for inflation, deflation, irrersable muliplication of debt into terminal debt by interest, and manipulation of the value of money and property. Keen, Hudson, Brown, Still, etc…. are all for maintaining the current (banking) system of exploitation and so do you it seems.

Economists are like architects that don’t know there is a Pythagorean theorem, even the most well intentioned are crippled by a pseudo scientific false paradigm as their frame of reference. Keen believes that the system can be adjusted to work without realising that the foundational concepts and definitions are 100% logically in-congruent and he is not about to admit that his whole career is a diversion from reality.

Forget economics, it is designed to be inconclusive and is made up of layers upon layers of circular logic. They have no system’s training and know nothing about control systems and borrow scientific concepts whimfully and misapply them. It is a phony discipline perfect for ambitious phonies seeking inconclusive “solutions” because they don’t know how to scope a problem statement. They confuse the functional scope of money with the indeterminate scope of the world economy.

Economics is the home of: “All complex problems must have complex solutions”, “Stable money only makes sense in a stable economy or a laboratory”, “you can’t stabilise money until you stabilise the economy”. All of which is evidence that they are the least qualified and know nothing about system’s analysis.

Economics is pure bullshit a smoke screen for the masses who have no independent reference and are easy prey to pseudo knowledge.

“No, it would not solve the problem, because the solution lies is not in who issues the money the issue is what money is designed to do.”

Absolutely wrong and in my opinion deceitful! The main source of the problem lies in who issues the money. Only sovereign governments should issue national currency. It’s just that simple but in my opinion most of these monetarists intentionally hide that simplicity so the private plunder can continue.

It’s not private citizens hoarding their honestly earned money or lending their honestly earned private capital amongst themselves for profit that is driving sovereign nations into crippling debt. It’s governments not issuing debt-free currency to start with and it’s governments not outlawing counterfeiting by the private private banks through fractional reserve lending. Instead the governments are borrowing their own national currency from a cabal of private lenders who are given a license to counterfeit that national currency out of thin air and lend it to sovereign governments at interest.

Citizens and private companies have a right to invest their honestly earned capital, whether in the form of equipment, hired labor or currency for a fee (profit) without having parasitical, robber baron, no-it-all, control freaks telling them what to do with their private property. All this other confusing rhetoric you are saying is just gibberish. The very fact you can’t explain anything without going into this long-winded wordy nonsense about the nature of money as if it’s some kind of mysterious mathematical problem shows that all your doing is hiding a very simple solution to a very uncomplicated problem.

According to your reasoning, interest bearing loans by a sovereign government are ok because they are issued by a sovereign state and interest free lending by a private bank is wrong because it is a private institution. You have a problem with basic reasoning.

The real answer is that everyone issue credit without any centralised control be it government or private bankers. All that is required for this is the correct money specification just like the meter or the kilo.

Now you sound like these lunatic austrian economics people. Since the begining of time in what part of the cosmos has a private bank ever issued a loan without interest? Or not conspired to monopolize control of money for the purpose of extorting debt. Just because cabals of plutocrats could more afford to operate a bank without charging interest than Govt, doesn’t mean that they will. In fact they won’t. That’s reality and why they cant be given control of any service involving the public trust.

“According to your reasoning, interest bearing loans by a sovereign government are ok because they are issued by a sovereign state and interest free lending by a private bank is wrong because it is a private institution. You have a problem with basic reasoning.

The real answer is that everyone issue credit….”

No you have a problem with twisting. Where did I say anything about the subject of governments lending money and private banks lending money interest free?

Marc you are either deliberately merging money creation with money lending in order to confuse or you are simply confused. Government creating national legal tender and spending it into the economy is not lending. Spending is not lending.

Only government, not “everyone”, has the sacred right and obligation to create and supply national legal tender. Anyone else who creates and supplies national legal tender should be thrown in jail for counterfeiting. However, private citizens lending honestly earned legal tender that has already been created and supplied by the government is just doing business. That legal tender represents their capital (wealth) that they created by honest toil and ingenuity and they have every right to earn a profit on their honestly earned capital. The government’s job is to make sure that sufficient legal tender is supplied as wealth grows resulting from gains from private investment of honestly earned capital.

I was responding to your use of P< P+I to claim that money should be created by the government. Now you say that interest is irrelevant.

Fine, I have already responded to the spending money into circulation "debt free" and why that makes no sense. If I build a road for the government and the government pays me with so called "debt free" money, then doesn't the government owe me the value of the road?

Once and for all, debt free money is an oxymoron. The fact that the state can create money without borrowing from bankers does not mean that that money doesn't represent a debt when it is issued, it has to represent a debt otherwise there is no point to it.

“If I build a road for the government and the government pays me with so called “debt free” money, then doesn’t the government owe me the value of the road?”

Marc, that government is you and the road is already yours. The government (you) gave you money to build it and with that money you put your kids through college plus you and your kids get to drive on the road for free. And also the government (you) did not go into debt to a private banking cartel as a result. It’s not complicated. I think the problem is that it’s too simple for monetarists to understand.

“You side stepped the issue, we all know that the government is the public. But the road was built and now everyone owes me, that is why the government pays me.”

This is absolute bunk…. The government is everyone including you and everyone including you paid you to build the road and you spent that money on you and your kids and now everybody including you owes you nothing.

And I’m not surprised my argument is incomrehensible to someone with a distorted mind that equates spending with lending and empty bank accounts to full ones. For such minds there is no hope.

Tammuz wrote: “The government is everyone including you and everyone including you paid you to build the road and you spent that money on you and your kids and now everybody including you owes you nothing.”

Your own statement above “…and now everybody… owes you nothing”. Meaning that until I spend the money, the money represents a debt to me, which was my point.

“but they are in charge now. They’d be the ones spending them debt free dollars. Presumably to build an even bigger army. Or militarize those parts of space they have not yet under control.”

Well there ya go… it’s really a moral crisis now isn’t it? It can’t be fixed with the application of theoretical monetary models, mathematics or the powers of the free market myth. It must be solved within the halls of government itself by some other means.

An antagonistic statement would be if I said you are a deliberate deceiver and a detractor whose job is to deflect attention away from the real problem to bog down with trivial terms and definitions: Spending is lending, when you’re paid you’re still owed, legal tender has no power, moral problems can’t interfere with the remedy of a technical problem… I’m not being antagonistic when instead I choose to say you have a distorted mind.

You are now in the domain of ad hominem attacking my person instead of my arguments.

None of the following represents statements of mine:

Tammuz: “Spending is lending, when you’re paid you’re still owed, legal tender has no power, moral problems can’t interfere with the remedy of a technical problem… ”

The above is uniquely a product of your mind.

Here is what I said,

– That if I am paid money for something, that money represents a debt to me until I spend it. (In other words money always represents a debt in transactions therefore “debt free money” is an oxymoron.)

– Moral problems are moral problems and technical problems are technical problems. (In other words the DEFINITION of the technical solution does not require solution of the moral problem and it is just as necessary. That does not mean that IMPLEMENTING a solution does not have moral implications.)

From these statements of mine you derive your statement above and try to insinuate that it is representative of my arguments and then infer that I have a twisted mind?

Tamuz, when trying to crawl out of a hole of your own making, stop digging!

when you have been paid, the money you possess is a debt to you fulfilled. The money you have in your pocket it real wealth transfered to you from another party as a result of labor or services performed. It makes no sense to call the money you possess a debt, unless it represents another claim against another person for an addtional amount. Just because you haven’t spent this money, doesn’t make this money a debt. It might be considered such in a commodity backed currency, as a claim on a reserve. But this isn’t what tammuz is talking about.

Debt free money refers to fiat money created without interest. It is the amount it purports to be based upon the faith and credit of the govt that issued it. You designation of “debt free money” being an oxymoron doesn’t make sense.

Contrarian Rex wrote: “when you have been paid, the money you possess is a debt to you fulfilled. The money you have in your pocket it real wealth transfered to you from another party as a result of labor or services performed.”

That is all based on the false notion that money is wealth. Money is not wealth that is it the point. The debt to me is the wealth I have forsaken and that is record in money, the debt to me will only be paid when I obtain equivalent value by cancelling my positive entry with a negative entry. It works like this:

Step 1: I create wealth A
Step 2: I transact A and obtain a receipt in the form of an account entry (cash is a portable account entry) for its value (money), the positive number in my account (or pocket) is proof that I am owed wealth of equivalent value.
Step 3: I purchase wealth B of the same value as A, this represents a negative entry to my account or a transfer of cash form my pocket to another. It is at this point that the debt to me, represented by the corresponding positive account entry is settled.

Money is a record of a debt for wealth forsaken represented as a positive entry to the one that forsakes wealth and a negative entry to the one that consumes the wealth. That is the function it performs exactly according to how it is used.

Now, if you assume that money is wealth, then the whole arrangement becomes confused because money becomes decoupled from the wealth that created it having to represent its value independently of the wealth and becomes susceptible to being rented etc.

The best analogy I can think of is that of toll booths on a highway. The highway is the economy, the toll booths are accounts and money is the numbers used to represent the vehicles (wealth) entering and leaving the highway (economy).

What I have just done is to perform a functional analysis of reality that is completely unambiguous and correctly describes money in a functional way and can be modeled completely with math. This is not semantics.

Your analogy depends on money being the thing of value, mine simply refuses to see money as value because it isn’t and never was. Money having intrinsic value is a fiction the only value money has is a functional value of measuring value in wealth within the function of transacting wealth.

This type of basic science is completely amiss in economics and that is precisely why economists and financiers are useless to us.

I didn’t say fiat money is wealth, like a commodity would be, but that it represents it. The paper of a fiat note for 100 dollars clearly isn’t worth 100 dollars — but it as money it “represents” that amount. This is abundantly clear if you had quoted my whole post, instead of a cherry picked quote that you could easily manipulate to you own end.

If you really understood what I mean when I say that money is not wealth, then we would not be arguing about it. It is the logic of your statements that expose you.

I have always held from the on start that the problem is precisely that money is treated as if it were wealth and that the only solution is to define money as simply a unit of measure of value but not the wealth itself. In this light, money is a stable tool used freely by everyone in the course of transacting wealth for which there is absolutely no need for any authority to “control” its “circulation”. Anyone who proposes such “control” is condemned to argue absurdity after absurdity. Why? Because as i have shown in this interchange a stable unit by definition doesn’t need control and there is no logical or constructive reason to “circulate” money given that its function is to record the circulation of wealth. What ever idiot that proposed the idea that the units recording wealth could themselves circulate as wealth, be bought, sold and rented is the Jacques Clouseau of human history. The man that in one goofy error of logic condemned mankind to thousands of years of acting like fools, proud of its achievements but enslaved by an idiot’s proposition.

Now we have armies of these fools and the racketeers behind them don’t have them under control. Their stuck between a rock and a hard place, on the one hand they need the shelter of a “professional” class to rationalise their obscene privilege but on the other hand they are fully aware that these “professionals” are wholly incompetent and in any moment will realise how they have been cruelly used as stooges and turn on them.

You are antagonistic. Big time. And you don’t have knowledge on your side either. Not monetarily, anyway: to come here and lecture me, let alone Marc on the wonders of debt free Government money is simpleminded. But not only do you do it, you insist in an incredible way with the fervor of a true believer.

So only monetarists or those studying in the field can dare refute a monetarist? Where have the monetarists demonstrated that they have a monopoly on the understanding of money? Painters know what paint is, steel workers know what steel is, farmers no what a farm is but monetarists can’t even agree on what money is. What does that say to the non-monetarists? What is says is that the field is either a dismal failure or a total sham.

Of course I am a true believer in government issued debt-free money because I’m also a true believer in government. I see that the monetarists in the monetary field promote every possible alternative to government issued debt-free money. That’s one thing they all seem to have in common, an underlying disdain for the institution of government, certainly not on what money is.

But it doesn’t take several years of study and still failing to agree on what money is to come to the “simpleminded” understanding that Government issued debt-free money is not just the most feared monetary system of the private bankers; it’s the only feared monetary system of the private bankers. The monetary field, with all their experts who can’t agree on what money is, perfectly serves their interests. It only makes sense that it is a product of the same.

It´s not that we disagree money is issued/controlled by government with strict money management rules in place anchored in the consitution. The disageeement is that money cannot be issued debt free. Money needs to be issued as debt to be able to retire it again at the rate of depreciation of the represented property to avoid inflation/deflation. That´s all.

Government then will also have to borrow money from the same government controlled Common Monetary Infrastructure (also free of interest). Let´s say governement wants to build a bridge from City A to City B, and needs 100M.

We can determine the lifespan of that bridge, let´s assume 100 years. So government lends 100M at 0%, and has the obligation to pay back 100M during the 100 year lifespan of the bridge. We can now determine based on expected traffic how much money the people using the bridge should pay when using the bridge. This money goes to government enabling government to fullfill their obligation to pay back x amount a month for the loan.

After 100 years the bridge is written of, and the 100M is paid back. No inflation, no deflation.

Exactly! But what is more, is that such can be achieved with no need for control of money per se, but rather control is in the contracted tasks and guarantees for which any money is automatically made available as long as you do what you say you will do i.e. there is no “not enough funds” cop out, that is so prevalent these days. Focus is thus driven away from money and instead towards real actions and real products and everyone gets to participate and contribute.

Money should not be lent into circulation with interest or without interest, period. When money is issued into circulation to build the bridge that same money must stay in circulation indefinitely to continue servicing private commerce.

“The borrower is servant to the lender.” Money must be a servant not a master. Periodically issue it with out a price and leave it in circulation indefinitely to serve the ingenuity and wealth creation on the public. No need for government to micromanage private commerce by assuming product life spans, product usage/consumption, and product pricing. Seems there are certain types that insist on sticking their nose into other people’s business.

Thank you Holland4MPE for giving a short and easy to understand breakdown of your proposition. It’s much appreciated

So then, how does your greenbacking solve inflation and deflation? Contracts are always set in nominal terms, not in real terms. So when real prices change, there are winners and losers. When prices go up, sellers are winners as are debtors. Buyers are losers, as are creditors. When prices go down, the sellers and the debtors turn into losers. So beyond any real economy effects inflation has on business through accounting, inflation and deflation act as transfers of income, creating winners and losers. Go figure dude…

Prices are the sellers decision… period… not just Big Brother. Sellers are not always winners when they raise their prices and buyers are not always losers when sellers raise their prices because there are alternatives… one of many is not to purchase. Stay out of people’s business, man. They don’t need anyone trying to preemptively save them from their personal business dealings… if they get overcharged they’ll learn. More micromanaging control freak stuff. The Austrians are looking more and more appealing all the time.

You really don´t get it do you? Under MPE nobody intervenes in any trade. There is no inflation or deflation and there is always enough liquidity available to provide full employment. It is the only true free market because it is a market free of exploitation.

You don’t need to interfere in order for money to be retired as things depreciate and there is no need for the process to be exact. In any event the calculation can be done by the buyer or a service provider expert in actuarial calculations and predictions.

The fundamental point being made that you are avoiding is that with a stable unit there is no need for any control. Just as when any unit of measure is defined there is no need to control the use of that unit in order to stabilise its value be it by the private or the public sectors.

No, your wrong. It does not require central planning. Prices are free to move subject to supply and demand. The market decides the price of everything. Proof to us why the market would not decide prices. Furthermore prices will be much easier to determine due to the nature of money (immutability). In other words, because the currency is not obfuscated it doesn´t play a role in the price discovery process.

Of course it requires central planning. Case by case assumptions of longevity and rate of consumption to determine the price of a billion different products would be impossible without central planning. And the type of central planning we’re talking about would be nothing short of Orwellian. Might as well get a shovel and start digging for gold and join the Austrians.

In your example to determine how much people “should pay” (price) for that particular product you needed to determine the “maximum possible lifespan” (longevity) and also the frequency of usage of that product. That was just one product. You still have about another billion products in the economy to go. And on each one you must determine (or guess) the “maximum possible lifespan “(longevity) and frequency of usage (consumption) to determine how much people “should pay” (the price) for each of those products. A billion different prices require a billion different determinations of the “maximum possible lifespan “(product longevity) and billion different determinations of the frequency of usage.

So yes I agree… determining the “maximum possible lifespan” is a “completely different” function than determining how much people “should pay” (the price). But it must be done a billion times in order to know how much people “should pay”(the price) for a billion different products. That requires Orwellian central planning to be achieved if possible.

We won´t be financing a billion different products under MPE. Finance will be mainly needed for housing and transport. Under MPE we will become 12x as liquid (12x more spending power). But even if we had to determine the lifespan of a billion products we could.

It’s another version of Big Brother but of course it will be introduced and implemented as non-threatening little brother. All public financing for transportation, infrastructure and housing require central planning even without a pricing scheme based on longevity and usage. And once this pricing scheme is established on the first few products precedence will be set for it to grow into an all-consuming Orwellian monstrosity. No thanks.

No wrong again, In all countries, it becomes a constitution if the country does not have one; it is an amendment, authored and passed by the people (inherently rescinding any conflicting measure) if the country has a constitution. No legislature, court, or other arm of a government has any authority to repeal or deny it, as we deny them that right. Of course, nonetheless, it can be amended by the people or their legislatures (as assented).

Any Orwellian control-freak scheme can be authored, introduced, and implemented (put into effect by becoming law)… so what? They’re doing that all the time. Just because some Orwellian control freak idea could one day become law doesn’t mean I’m wrong because I disagree with it.

To control the money in circulation as per represented wealth, checking creditworthiness, and an obligatory schedule of re-payment at the rate of depreciation/consumption of the related property. Nothing Orwellian about that, just bookkeeping principles i.e. money management. Prices are left for the market to decide. Instead of shouting in every direction as an angry young teenager who doesn´t understand how anything else will harm him I advise you to do a little research on MPE.

“…obviously don’t have a clue about actuarial sciences, but I am sure you are going to lecture everyone about it anyhow.”

Just because someone is not in your field of so-called “actuarial sciences” refutes your view you get all snooty and call that opposing view a “lecture”. I’m not the one posting up multiple gobs and links of long-winded and complex point-by-point thesis and 28 part videos for people to force themselves to endure.

It’s exposed. You can start yelling and throwing all this worthless pile of rearranged filler like “stress distribution calculation” and “extending the period on the basis of other freehold assets” on top of it to cover it back up but it’s too late. The exposé is visibly recorded where it shall remain. Damage done. You’re all from the exact same source.

I don’t care about jobtitles, I care about arguments. And yours are none too impressive. And you after you awoke from the private fractional reserve banking scam you fell head over heels for the next paradigm.

Whereas the art of growth is the ability to at least temporarily entertain many options. So you can use all of them for your own synthesis. By being so pigheaded you are now stuck with a 1860 paradigm…….

To be fair, the 1860 paradigm is the only one here, aside from your brief depiction of demurrage, that has a long history of unadulterated success. Hundreds of years of copper fiat coins in ancient Rome and 700 yrs of tally sticks in England is very impressive. All of the govt fiat monetary systems have ONLY been discontinued because of sabotage, regime change, or banker lobbying.

I’m open to whatever defeats the current system to replace it with govt fiat. i see local independent currencies like the gelre as a means to getting there. I also have no issue with the continuance of independent currencies in coexistence with sovereign govt fiats systems.

What about a definitive scientific and mathematically valid Information Technology standard specification for money, that trivialises money making it accessible to all and any, for any transaction and that is certified to be unequivocally stable, inert and benign while not losing any functionality.

IMO the govt is only as good or bad as those to whom they are beholden. Plutocrats have always usurped govt according to the old Rothchild saying about not caring who writes the laws, just let the private banks issue the money. A national bank would defeat this subversion by bringing back the power of money to the people and completely defunding the plutocrats ruling behind the thrones today.

As if “an obligatory schedule of re-payment” according to longevity and usage of “related property” (product) doesn’t require central planning and Orwellian enforcement.

You came out from under your cloak of lengthily, obscure wordy jargon and gave a clear example of how your proposition works in just a few paragraphs and exposed how utterly useless and Orwellian it is; now your trying to run back under the cover of all that obscure jargon. Ninety nine percent of what you say and those like you say can be said in a few sentences with simple words using clear examples but that would only expose how utterly tyrannical and corrupt it is. The robber barons need to hide their nefarious schemes of plunder and tyranny behind appearances of higher knowledge using fabricated complexity.

And now a commoner, wonders into the arena and doesn’t agree with these control freak propositions, is deemed an angry child who doesn’t understand anything and in danger of being harmed… …the mindset of a snooty arrogant elitist.

“As if “an obligatory schedule of re-payment” according to longevity and usage of “related property” (product) doesn’t require central planning and Orwellian enforcement.”

No it doesn’t, just like the issuance of insurance policies don’t require central planning, once the actuarial methodology is established everyone can use it. Besides, while repayment should not exceed the depreciation of a product there is nothing preventing anyone repaying before hand and neither is there any problem in extending the period on the basis of other freehold assets.

Relax, there is no boogey man behind making intelligent calculations, do you really think that stress distribution calculation to comply with building codes needs central planning? Well it is the same principle here, any qualified professional can calculate a depreciation period and applying that period to individual loans DOES NOT REQUIRE ORWELLIAN OVERSIGHT!

“I don’t care about jobtitles, I care about arguments. And yours are none too impressive. And you after you awoke from the private fractional reserve banking scam you fell head over heels for the next paradigm….By being so pigheaded you are now stuck with a 1860 paradigm.”

Your argument on the core subject of this article is not only unimpressive it has utterly failed. You failed to offer any proof that the problem in Worgl was due to “hoarding” even though you used it as an example to back up the title of your article. Nor have you offered any other historical or current evidence to suggest that “hoarding” among the general citizenry has ever caused depression.

“Hoarding”… is just a baseless claim that you use to lure those who have woken up into an even worse paradigm… one that would require Big Brother on steroids to implement.

I consider all these theories just controlled opposition coming from the same dark priesthood. The black arts of deception financed by the illuminists money powers. They confuse so the plunder can continue. Look at all the stuff in your post. Who on earth is supposed to understand that stuff? If the butcher, the baker, the carpenter, the fisherman and the farmer and those of such can’t explain it or understand these theories then that means those who invented it and promote it don’t want those sorts to understand it either. And it just so happens that those are the sorts who produce the majority of the world’s wealth. Now aint that a coincidence.

All these word games. When good responsible people within a government prove to successfully manage the issuance of a nation’s currency that government now becomes a “state.” When honest hardworking people save their money “saving” now becomes “hoarding”. This is nothing but deceptive word games from a dark priesthood posing as truth bearers.

Jimi Hendrix put politics (or political economy) in the right perspective when he said “it’s the art of words which means nothing.”

If there was a modicum of truth to your hysterical claims that demurrage is theft and would be used to exploit and enslave men with debt, the banker cabals would have used it long before Michael Unterguggenberger (or whomever) was an idea in God’s mind. That they haven’t more than suggests that this monetary system cannot be used for evil ends. All of your complaints are centered on theoretical and casuistic quibbling that vanishes in the light of practical experience and application. Just look at what happened in Austria. It was discontinued, like all of the debt free fiat banking systems, not only at the hight of its success, but also because of it.

@Anthony You evidently want to pretend that velocity isn’t already, virtually instantaneous. It isn’t whether your ability to pay can be determined fast enough to execute vital transactions; the whole issue is whether you have access to sufficient funds or credit-worthiness. You should complete your interview with Mike if you want to establish your purported fact of velocity.

You know, my impression is that you are substantially deficient in integrity. “Maybe mike doesn’t realize it,” conveys nothing but pretended superior analysis. If there were such an analysis, that analysis would be your argument. What’s the matter with you? I see right through it, myself. What you hope to convey is the impression of integrity, not its substance.

This is wrong on many counts Jake. Immense sums are withheld as long as possible, especially by big business and government to maximize their liquidity positions. You have worked in major corporations, right? Then you must know this.

Again, check the graph: velocity has tanked since the depression started because everybody is acting according the old wisdom that during deflation cash is king.

Why don’t you get your head out of Mike’s ass and start doing some thinking for yourself. Mike is good, one of the very best, but he ain’t no saint, he didn’t invent it all, MPE is not perfect or complete and Mike’s wrong routinely, just like everybody else in this business.

Doesn’t this system mean that anybody receiving payment at the end of the month would have to pay for the stamps, even if they intended to spend the Certified Compensation Bills shortly afterwards; whereas somebody who had held the Bills from the start of the month until nearly the end would lose nothing?

This would require continuous electronic monitoring/tracking of all corporate and individual bank accounts and time and place of every single purchase/transaction (on a global scale if it were a US dollar type world reserve currency) down to the last nanosecond because of the potential loss on large-scale transactions. This is Big Brother on steroids. And “Certified Compensation Bills” means an individual’s reward for his/her labor must also be licensed by Big Bother. This is some pretty sick control freak stuff. Perfect to get the NWO minded types running into the trap of the Austrian school.

I agree wholeheartedly! But please correct me if I am wrong. Demurrage is not needed and requires authoritative overhead to implement while having no scientific basis to determine the rates of demurrage that need to be applied. It represents a control mechanism in hands of “experts” that requires relativist and opinion based criteria to “caliber” the demurrage rate. Finally, such decisions are capable of altering the behaviour of the economy as a whole and therefore represent a nest bed for corruption.

http://www.bibocurrency.org defines stable money mathematically and once and for all, with respect to satisfyiing the following requirements:

Definitions for the “ASTA3” acronym

Note: please refer to the Specification document for further terms and definitions that for convenience and to alert the reader to specific meanings will always be capitalised as will be the new terms defined in this document for more definitions please refer to:

http://bibocurrency.org/English/standard.htm. B.I.B.O. is an acronym used in Control Systems Engineering that refers to “Bounded Input Bounded Output” the sine qua non requirement for stability in the types of systems that include money systems.

Abundant: Currency Units shall be available to any compliant Passive BIBO Transaction.

Stable: The Currency System shall be stable according to the scientific definition of stability as applied to money systems to find out more about BIBO visit: http://cnx.org/content/m34515/latest/

Transaction: The process by which Wealth is transferred and Accounted for in @ (Passive BIBO Currency symbol) resulting in a Credit to the provider(s) of Wealth and Debit of equal magnitude to the receiver(s) of Wealth.

Anyplace: Access to the Transaction unit is automatically available for any Transaction where ever the parties may be geographically located.

Anytime: Access to the Transaction unit is automatically available for any Transaction whenever the parties desire.

Anyone: Access to the Transactions unit is automatically available for any Transaction to any human being or group of humans.

A BIBO-Currency is a Passive Stable System because both Input and Output have bounded values and Output never exceeds Input.

The stable currency unit theorem:

A Passive BIBO Stable Currency System by definition implies that all of the system’s component Transactions are also necessarily Passive BIBO Stable. Therefore, it directly follows that if every Transaction is a Passive BIBO Stable process and all currency created is necessarily a product of such Stable Transactions, then, all such currency maintains a Bounded ratio with the wealth input to the system. Thus the unit is also stable by definition!

Also, magnitude of @ Debits at all times is equal to that of @ Credits and the sum of all existing Balances equals zero at all times.

2. The BIBO-Currency System shall serve Transactions not determine them:

A BIBO-Currency System is inert as it has no effect on the creation of Wealth, i.e. its use cannot deter or provoke the creation of Wealth rather it is the creation of wealth and the free spontaneous desire to trade that wealth that generates @ unit Debits and Credits.

3. Passive BIBO-Currency Transactions shall be free of coercion by virtue of availability of @’s.

No side of any Transaction may derive an advantage over the other by virtue of availability of @. No Member can exercise control over access or use of @ by other Members. Both sides of any Transaction have equal and opposite influence over Price in terms of availability of the @. All Transactions in @ are fully voluntary and free of any coercion.

4. Use of @’s shall be uniquely for the representation of the value of Wealth in Transactions

Creation and transfer of Wealth does not depend on @ but rather use of @ depends on previous existence of Wealth.

5. @’s shall not be subject to counterfeiting or falsification

Only @s resulting from identifiable transactions by authenticated users are recognised.

No copying whatsoever, never have read or referred to MPE in the thirty years prior to the publishing of BIBO, neither is it required all necessary references exist independent of MPE. The specification is the modus operandí of an implementation. All that is required for an implementation is simple account entry records according to the system rules and corollaries.

Your just re-inventing the wheel with bad intentions or not, I don´t know. What´s the point? I don´t care myself who get´s credit for it as long as we replace the current system with an immutable currecny, but it seems obvious to me Mike should be given credit as he has been doing this since 1968. Your just another eleventh hour reformer. No hard feelings, just dissapointed due to more division.

“Well, in the face of all I’ve offered you I must simply conclude this is pigheadedness.
Let’s agree to disagree!”

Anthony. What did you offer me? You offered me no historical or current evidence even after I requested it. Your article doesn’t even provide any evidence that the depression in Wörgl was due to the citizenry of Wörgl “hoarding the means of exchange.” In fact all your article does is support my view that the problem in Wörgl was due to the reduction of the money supply due to the “catastrophic” policies of the Austrian Central Bank and had nothing to due with the citizens of Wörgl saving (“hoarding”) their money. You’re the one that’s being pigheaded by continuing to promote a theory based on zero evidence. My conclusion is that your theory is just another ploy executed from the exact same source as the Austrian proponents to use the means of exchange (currency) to rob the commoners of their property.

This velocity crap is just another excuse to steal from us. None of us will deserve or preserve a justice we will not even bother to understand. The stars of the last days of usury will well scatter the arguments of singular solution, understanding already that nothing less will deliver us from the perpetual consequences of the present abuse of power. The rest? Sitting on your hands, advocating false solution, sowing division, or actively promoting pseudo-science with its very consequences manifesting everywhere about us, you Judas are the vehicle of liberty’s demise.

There will always be velocity. No need to disbalance the circulation per represented wealth with either positive or negative interest. It´s both theft. You also incurage people to consume more which has further negative effects on our planet and sociëty. Besides that we already have a fine for not spending, it´s called inflation!

Great discussion, hope I’m not too late to weigh in with an opinion. It seems that the scarcity of money is a chronic problem with all debt money systems. No doubt, the velocity of money can help mitigate the scarcity but that alone doesn’t seem an adequate solution.

“Hoarding” (saving) reduces velocity as does repaying bank debt. In the U.S. for example, if the national debt were repaid, we’d have no money in which to conduct trade and commerce. Equally, if people repaid their debts, we’d be broke. The governments of enslaved states must continuously borrow without repaying in order to have an economy.

I suggest that instead of incurring debt, nation states should spend debt free money into the economy by building and enhancing infrastructure. This should be done at the most local level as is practical in order to empower the people. There should be no shortages of money. I think people would be better off repaying their debts and saving money but our zany system would implode under such circumstances.

Good points Larry. However with regards to “velocity”… the “velocity” of money does nothing to mitigate the scarcity of money. In other words, “velocity” will not increase the supply of money therefore it will not reduce its scarcity. When money is scarce there is no money to fly around, thus “velocity” is a non-issue and describes an inaccurate understanding of the problem. The problem is scarcity and issuing more currency solves the problem of scarcity. “Velocity” is a misnomer as well as a non-issue.

No. There is a fundamental difference. Interest on credit is almost impossible to avoid, particularly because producers pass on cost for capital, amounting to 45% of prices we pay, even if we have no debt.

Demurrage is easy to avoid, by spending the cash.

The costs of demurrage compared to total economic activity is negligible: in the Worgl case it was 0.1%. So there is none to pass on for producers.

The benefit of demurrage to the wider public is major and well worth the marginal cost to users.

the theft argument is ridiculous. there is no motive of enrichment, there is just a systemic rule, costing very little aimed purely at creating positive behavior. Speeding tickets are not considered theft, are they? They help prevent stupid maniacs speeding around little children.

No one has the right to force people to buy stuff under threat of confiscating their property. No one has the right to change the behavior of others unless that behavior is harmful to others… and stealing people’s property is harmful behavior therefore it’s the Dumurragians that need a change in behavior.

Also: just look at the graph in the article: it clearly shows that velocity crashed. Do you really believe it has nothing to do with this recession?

Look: you’re not being rational on this one: I’ll grant I handled this subject a little provocatively, with the title (don’t hoard!) as it was. But the truth is: saving money is a vice and you’ve been brainwashed to believe it is a boon. And why?

Because the banks need your savings as deposits for their fractional reserve con. And also consider this: while saving was inculcated as ‘sound’ behavior during the nascent gold based economies of the 17th and 18th centuries: who were the ones ‘saving’ back then: the rich or the poor.

Anthony, the money supply is the total quantity of bills, coins, loans, credit and other instruments that can be easily converted to cash that is traditionally reported by the Fed in 3 categories, M1 (coins, dollar bills, and checking accounts), M2 (M1 plus savings accounts, money market funds, and other individual or “small” time deposits), and M3 (no longer reported by the Fed) which is M1 and M2 plus large institutional and American dollars circulating abroad. There’s nothing about “velocity” in that definition. The word velocity can only be used as a consequence resulting from changes in the supply or quantity of money.

The problem facing Wörgl had nothing to do with the people of Wörgl “hoarding” their cash and causing “velocity” problems but had to do exclusively with the Austrian Central Bank reducing the “supply” of money and the 1500 unemployed and the 200 destitute families were not “hoarding” cash thus severely reducing the “velocity” of money. The “velocity of money is a badly neglected aspect of monetary theory” because it’s a non-issue and only important to those who need terminology to craft another scheme (“theory”) to plunder the commoners.

Debt free money in itself is not sufficient to eradicate Usury though, Larry.
with a demurrage on the debt free unit, however, you’d have a built in incentive to loan out money interest free (because it would prevent the loss of value through the demurrage).

Or, of course, the debt free money should be combined with an interest free credit facility.

Adding a dumurrage to debt-free money essentially converts it into debt-based money. Meaning, the longer people hold it the greater the cost of the money just like the longer people hold borrowed money the greater the cost of the money. It puts a price on money. Both have the same effect… siphoning off wealth from the productive class to the unproductive class (the parasitical thieves).

And adding a fee to holding debt-free money (a dummurage) will not prevent anyone from loaning it out with interests, (even though lending and borrowing among private contract is not the issue here but it’s government borrowing)… they will just add the dummurage fee on top of the interests.

What is damaging to the economy is not private finance companies lending non-debt based money to their customers through contractual agreement at interest, but it’s governments borrowing money instead of creating it themselves and using it interest-free that is the problem. You’re mixing up private contract with non-debt based government (public) issued currency. There’s nothing usurious about companies investing (lending) their rightfully earned debt-free currency through private contract for a fee whether that fee be a stake in the success of that investment or an interest charge.

You are defending interest bearing loans? while claiming demurrage is theft?

that’s nonsense tammuz: now you’re losing it: you’re making the case for the monied classes, pure and simple.

We can have interest free credit, there is absolutely no need for interest at all. go read the On Interest and Budget of an Interest Slave to see how despicable the effects (in terms of cost to the borrower) interest really is, whether it’s on the money supply or on ‘normal’ loans.

Again: demurrage costed a very paltry 0.1 % of total turnover. Interest costs have amounted to 45% of total turnover already.

If you want to resist demurrage, which is simpleminded, first get rid of this strange idea that interest bearing loans are either fair or necessary.

In fact: even if there were no interest free credit possible, like 100 years ago, demurrge would have solved that, because it would have given the monied classes a clear incentive to lend out interest free. If you resist that notion, you are still pretty engrossed in the magical thinking the banker has invested so jmuch effort in making you believe in.

“Interest bearing loans” within the private sector that’s lent from existing deposits is not the same as money being created out of thin air via fractional reserve lending at interest. If I am wealthy and I want to lend or invest some of my money for gain under private contract that’s called business and involves a calculated risk. I am not creating money out of thin air.

Your dumerrage on the other hand is theft by decree… it charges individuals for holding money without their agreement… in essence, what the money represents, their property, is confiscated (stolen) by the Dumerragians. This has the same effect as debt-based money, instead of the government issuing debt-free currency it borrows the currency through the sale of bonds and saddles individuals with debt that they did not agree to thus stealing their property. Whether the private banks or the dumerragian ringleaders steal the property makes no difference.

This is private contractual investment by mutual agreement within the cities of modern Babylon. This is not at all the same as robbing the masses of their private property against their freewill which is what you’re promoting.

It’s absolutely absurd to expect someone to take the risk to invest his or her property in the business venture of a complete stranger for zero return either by sharing the profits of that venture if it is successful (and bearing the losses if it is not) or by charging a fee (profit margin) for the sale of capital (personal wealth in the form of currency).

In your view all return on personal investment of private property is usury… that is absurd and the last thing a nation needs is a gang of thugs imposing these draconian policies on its citizenry.

The results of the “Power of Demurrage” and the “Power to inflate the money supply” – due to fiat-money and credit expansion – are pretty much the same: The units of currency one holds will buy less goods and services in the future.

This is theft. Pure and simple.

Why anyone would peddle such a concept – apart from the more obvious reasons – is beyond me.

What makes the dumurage similar to “fiat-money and credit expansion” is that it charges a fee for using non-debt based fiat money but the fee is less than the usurious charges of debt based fiat money because most users spend it before they have to pay the fee. Hence, both systems are theft but one is theft by charging a fee and the other by charging interest.

However, injecting non-debt based fiat money into a system where the private banks have intentionally contracted the debt-based fiat or gold backed money supply (credit contraction) creating excess capacity of labor (unemployment), idle capital/machinery and overstocked supplies/inventory… will not cause the currency to “buy less goods or services” because productivity of goods and services will increase as the underutilized labor and capital responds to the injection of new money.

Money is just a tool that induces and facilitates the flow of the true source and generators of wealth… people. Which is why God said to the people He created, “Be fruitful (generate wealth) and multiply (expand that wealth)”. Thus, non-usurious money is in cooperation with God’s decree.
.

The proponents of the demurrage are blaming the victims of the Great Depression in Wörgl and not the instigators which was the result of the catastrophic policies of the Austrian Central Bank that dramatically reduced the money supply and had nothing to do with high savings levels of the general citizenry. The Austrian Central Bank was obviously under the control of the same private banking cartel that plunged the entire world into depression. Therefore the demurrage worked not because it penalized savers but because it injected a new supply of debt-free money at a time when it was badly needed.

Canada was going through the same problem at the same time and got themselves out of the same depression by decoupling itself from the usurious private bankers’ and their gold standard and issuing debt-free notes from the newly created Bank of Canada, a publicly owned central bank.

There is no need to penalize savers because it’s the usurers that are a detriment to all economies not the savers. Savers have never been proven to be a detriment to any economy.

many years ago i discovered someone claimed
“SEXUAL CONNOTATIONS THAT Shakespeare claimed usury had. Forgot who. Could look it up. Hpoe someone else will. Who knows if BillySpakeshear was playing for laughs at the time, … speak up or forever hold your silence.
i expected this to be clarified, tossed about and clarified at rest, ease and leasure to see how the sizes shook out and settled but nope. Zip .. besides deep disappointment, i am reluctant to even bring/dredge this up again for fear of either being hurt or find out about hurtful choke and cover up methods people who point at me in derision use .. ‘liberally’ .. till my liberating and volitionizing potential is riddled with the exudates of such pointy fingers.

And again the sluggish circulation that played a key role in depressions was not due to personal savings levels but due to intentional contraction of the money supply by corrupt private controllers of a usurious monetary system. A tax on holding money is indiscriminant, outright theft. It’s absolutely unnecessary to induce national prosperity

The real purpose of the demurrage is to make it impossible by decree for individuals to hide their wealth. This is an elitist’s tyrannical doctrine… If you can’t hide your wealth then those who want it will know where to go to steal it. All of these theories including Austrian are just different methods of plunder.

I’m a really a bit surprised by your strong attitude towards these concepts Tammuz. It’s quite clear from your comments you have a good understanding of the issues, including the vital interest issue, and I believe we would agree on most things. But for some reason you can’t really seem to get your head around this one.

Well, I’ve done my best, so we’ll just have to agree to disagree on the hoarding issue!

by the by, I think the graph in the article shows that massive deflation like we’ve been seeing the last few years is closely associated to slowing velocity. That should give some pause: you were asking for proof that hoarding and depression were associated and I believe the graph at least gives strong anecdotal evidence. Combined with the astounding effects of demurrage in the Woergl case methinks something’s going on.

Anthony, I understand the negative effects of what you call, “slowing velocity” and yes this slowing is a result of a contraction of money but this contraction was never, and I repeat, NEVER, the result of high levels of cash savings among the general citizenry, or what you call “hoarding” cash, but it has always been the result of the private money powers intentionally contracting the money supply either by calling in loans and reducing loans or by what they are doing now: hoarding it among big finance using QE2, QE3 to promote the illusion of inflation and threats of hyper-inflation while intentionally keeping this money out the real economy. Artificially keeping prices up at the pump as advertisements for inflation also helps support this illusion. Adding more lies saying that the price of gold reflects the devaluation of the dollar from all this “printing out of thin air” when in reality all major commodities and currencies each have a separate lever which the elite use to control the price of each independently from one another.

You may believe what you are promoting is right but I have one Teacher upon which all my views are based. And this Teacher has taught me that stealing is wrong no matter how it’s disguised or dressed up. You do not realize it, and I do not mean to be harsh, but you are teaching the art of theft. Whenever you get into the subject of controlling money you are getting into the subject of controlling people (government) and this is the most sacred responsibility entrusted to man. This is not something that God gets butted out of when it’s convenient as most economists do.

Nebuchadnezzar, leader of the world’s first empire, learned that lesson and said, “Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honor the King of heaven, all of whose works are truth, and His ways justice.”

Anthony, hoarding is when you are holding on to something that doesn’t rightfully belong to you… that’s theft. Saving is when you are saving something that rightfully belongs to you because you paid for it with your labor and intelligence.

It’s easy to see what this is really all about like I mentioned earlier, it’s about exposing wealth so when the time comes for the robber barons to steal it they’ll no exactly where to go to get it. So if you save it they’ll steal it… and if you convert it to visible holdings it will remain under their watchful eye until they decide to take it. This can be the only reason you keep promoting this because there is zero evidence of high savings among the citizenry being detrimental to any economy.

If you promote a scheme that intentionally confiscates someone’s savings it is you who are promoting the practice of theft. Who is more righteous in God’s eyes, the person who saves what they rightfully labored for or the person who uses an elaborate scheme to steal what others labored for?

Anthony, when you reduce the value of someone’s rightfully generated wealth either by taxing that wealth or forcing them to reduce a portion of that wealth through a monthly fee for holding it you are confiscating (stealing) their rightfully earned wealth. You are also promoting slavery. When you steal someone’s wealth earned by their toil and sacrifice you are essentially forcing that someone to allocate a portion of their labor for you with no compensation which is equivalent to slavery.

It transpires that people actually lose very little to demurrage, compared to the turnover in the economy (per unit).

the incentive is to spend the cash and use other means of storing wealth. This, as the example shows, is very much compensated by the far better chances of obtaining wealth (by finding a job in a 33% unemployment economy, for instance.

The example clearly showed that people avoided the ‘tax’ by simply spending the money (instead of sitting on it, to the detriment of the community).

the total income through demurrage was 2,5k, whereas the total turnover of the units circulating was 2,5 million. This means the price the community payed was only 0,1%. This cannot be considered ‘theft’ or outrageous in any sense.

So the small amounts people might lose indivdually on their currencies via demurrage would be made up exponentially by the amount the govt collected as a multipler effect of money velocity, which in turn could be returned as expenditures on on public services?

If what i said made any sense, then demurrage would not be stealing at all, but the contrary.

Taking property that does not belong to you that you didn’t earn for any reason is theft. All godless control freaks rob from groups under the pretense of benefiting the collective… I believe that’s called tyranny.

If this monetary system could be arranged by a popular vote then it wouldn’t be theft. Especially, if laws could stipulate how the money was to be spent that would accrue to benefit everyone individually and collectively. Taking 1 dollar and returning 100 in goods and/or services is an honest business practice by most peoples’ standards.

Taxes that follow the same formula of providing for a necessary and public service is not a theft either. This is this austrian deregulation of the free market taken to an extreme. Most people that go around calling taxes and govt safety net programs are misanthropic elitists, or their libertarian dupes.

Anthony. It’s robbing people of their property and their freewill. It violates the “Golden Rule.” God doesn’t force people and micromanage them through theft to force them to buy things for the benefit of “the community.” This is evil control-freak satanic stuff. What right do you or I have to threaten another with stealing their property if they don’t buy something? I’m afraid you economists have driven yourselves to the brink of madness with all your theories

@pm
When the “popular vote” is to harm the innocent for the benefit of the collective,
that law is null and void. God dealt with nations who had such perverse “popular” votes…
Sodom and Gomorrah are just a couple of examples.

The solution is clear wealth has value money is only a record of that value and should never become a surrogate of that wealth. The whole problem of “controlling” the circulation of money arises because of that fundamental confusion about what money really is.

The idea that money circulates is fundamentally nonsensical what circulates is wealth and accounts (money) simply record the ins and outs of that circulation. To now make the record circulate as an object of value is totally unnecessary UNLESS THERE IS A GRATUITOUS IMPEDIMENT TO ENTERING RECORDS in the first place.

That I think is the point, we have been bamboozled into believing that we need to share our personal scores, because somehow we are prevented from scoring freely in the first place!

You do make a good point, but what about taxes? That is just theft by violence. And you have usury which is another form of stealing. In fact, if this worked one time, why not try it again. In fact,
maybe you can have a few other currencies to compete against it. What we have now is a bad joke.

Yes … most taxes are theft especially taxes on labor. But as I mentioned above, what worked was increasing the supply of debt-free money… it was a supply problem which the dumurage remedied and had nothing to do with so-called “velocity.” Any debt-free legal tender injected into that scenario increasing the money supply would have solved the problem.

Is there a possible downside to demurrage? I have in mind the computerized high velocity wash and spoof trades that occur on wall street with banks and hedge funds, wherein money is generated by a high number of trades without an actual economic exchange. Would such a scenario trigger inflation or devaluation of the money supply?

good question. I’m not sure what the implications would be in the international casino, which, btw, is suffering from a horrible contraction at the moment.

However, I’d say we’d have to shut all that up anyway.

I do believe that a demurrage could cause a devaluation/inflation kind of scenario. In the Woergl case it did not happen, because the experiment lasted only some 15 months or so. But had it been around longer, the money supply with such a high velocity might have been too big and prices rises might eventually have occurred. But this would have been no problem were people not hoarding cash, but burying their money in real assets!

As you know I favor mutual credit based units. However, the circulation issue is quite important and demurrage not only gives interesting hints on the how and why, it also is a practical solution to a bad system, so even though I’d agree BIBO compliant units are probably best, I still have great respect for Gesell and his methods!

Of course all the historical steps taken to lead people to realise that something is wrong with the current money system have their importance. The circulation issue is where one spots that something is not right. How can it be that there is insufficient access to number? I used to ask myself.

There is a world of difference between negative interest and positive interest. In fact negative interest is Passive BIBO Stable is the lower limit of depreciation is zero. However, I have trouble with money being a central power, to me money must be relegated to an auxiliary function to the creation of value. Value is what circulates and money just keeps track of that value whose embodiment cannot be divided to effect trade.

Note that we don’t need money to measure everything that is traded only that which cannot be bartered or gifted.

It seems a bit backwards from what we are used to, but it makes perfect sense. And if the currency loses just 1% of value over a period of time, it seems like that all it takes for people to spend their money. What is interesting is that I think that would really push up employment rates
and everybody wins. This isn’t the case in our current system.

Does anyone know how I can see the full width of the
comnments here? I find this site and it’s topics very
informative, but unfortunatly many of the postings are
cut off on the right side, and I have to guess at
what is being written.